# Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs



## buzz

From Mike Mearls' blog:



			
				Ryan Dancey said:
			
		

> I observed (2-way mirror) several groups who were given "rules lite" RPG systems as a part of an effort to understand how they were used and if the "liteness" was actually delivering any utility value. Using a stopwatch, we found that consistently zero time was saved in character creation, or adjudicating disputes. In fact, in some games, disputes lasted substantially longer because the GM could not just point to a written rule in a book and call the argument closed.
> 
> 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.


----------



## Gentlegamer

And who comprised these "test groups" . . . ?

If they were being run by the equivalent of Dungeon _Milquetoasts_ that couldn't make a ruling and cutting of "disputes" without pointing to a written rule, the results are quite questionable.


----------



## BiggusGeekus

I'll buy this.

I remember arguements a-go-go about where people were standing in combat and the like.  

But then I'm a pretty crunchy kind of guy.


----------



## Desdichado

While somewhat interesting as an observation, I really have to wonder what that has to do with most groups out there who normally play rules lite games.

Rather than giving rules lite games to various random focus groups of gamers, they would need to study folks who regularly play rules lite games to make such a sweeping pronouncement of their utility.


----------



## SWBaxter

Doesn't sound like a particularly well-controlled experiment. Length of time to create characters or resolve disputes is almost entirely a function of familiarity with a given ruleset, and similar rulesets. The difference between rules-light and rules-heavy games in that respect is how long it takes to become familiar with them. It doesn't sound like Dancey has observed enough gaming groups to control for the various permutations and produce useful data.


----------



## Turanil

*SOMETHING THAT DRAMATICALLY REDUCES THE TIME SPENT ON ACTUAL COMBAT:*

1) DM uses a stopwatch.
2) Each round of combat the player has 6 to 10 seconds to determine what he does.
3) If past the 6 or 10 seconds he is still hesitating and making calculations about his next move, he has lost his turn of play, and does nothing during that round.

Anyway, I am going to implement this rule in my next tabletop campaign. I am death-tired of players who are counting and recounting squares, asking many thing to the DM and whoever, changing their mind and saying "No! No! I don't do this but rather that...", etc. Such players spend more than two minutes per each round of combat discussing tactics and possiblities, arguing over a point of rule, and what not. Now I am going to say: "It's action, you don't have time for strategy unless you spend your round thinking about it and nothing else. So now do something or lose your turn. If it's bad tactics, it's normal, in such a hurry mess, one can only make mistakes, including foes." By the way, when something dangerous happens in rela life, you don't waste time looking around for best tactics, either you fight or run NOW!"

End of rant.


----------



## reveal

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> While somewhat interesting as an observation, I really have to wonder what that has to do with most groups out there who normally play rules lite games.
> 
> Rather than giving rules lite games to various random focus groups of gamers, they would need to study folks who regularly play rules lite games to make such a sweeping pronouncement of their utility.




OTOH, aren't rules lite games promoted as being "easier" to start with and to play, in general? I don't know much about these systems, but if I were a newbie, I would want to start with something "easy" and a rules lite system would be more attractive because I wouldn't have to learn as much to start playing. But it seems, at least from Ryan Dancey's peepshow, that is not the case and could, in fact, turn off people who think "If this is rules lite, I'd hate to try the rules 'heavy' games!"


----------



## Glyfair

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> While somewhat interesting as an observation, I really have to wonder what that has to do with most groups out there who normally play rules lite games.
> 
> Rather than giving rules lite games to various random focus groups of gamers, they would need to study folks who regularly play rules lite games to make such a sweeping pronouncement of their utility.




He did somewhat address part of this bit (although this wasn't hard data) in the first half of the post that buzz didn't quote :



			
				Ryan Dancey said:
			
		

> In my experience, most "rules lite" game systems simply substitute written rules for ad hoc rules made on the spot as necessary by GMs.
> 
> There are two big problems with that shift:
> 
> 1) The GM has to be really good. Good enough to be an on the fly game designer. I'd call that person "extremely rare" and wouldn't try to base a business around their existence.
> 
> 2) Game experience is not portable. What you learn with one GM may be exactly the opposite of how the rules are applied when you switch GMs. This creates network inefficiencies. Network inefficencies are bad.


----------



## reveal

Turanil said:
			
		

> *SOMETHING THAT DRAMATICALLY REDUCES THE TIME SPENT ON ACTUAL COMBAT:*
> 
> 1) DM uses a stopwatch.
> 2) Each round of combat the player has 6 to 10 seconds to determine what he does.
> 3) If past the 6 or 10 seconds he is still hesitating and making calculations about his next move, he has lost his turn of play, and does nothing during that round.
> 
> Anyway, I am going to implement this rule in my next tabletop campaign. I am death-tired of players who are counting and recounting squares, asking many thing to the DM and whoever, changing their mind and saying "No! No! I don't do this but rather that...", etc. Such players spend more than two minutes per each round of combat discussing tactics and possiblities, arguing over a point of rule, and what not. Now I am going to say: "It's action, you don't have time for strategy unless you spend your round thinking about it and nothing else. So now do something or lose your turn. If it's bad tactics, it's normal, in such a hurry mess, one can only make mistakes, including foes." By the way, when something dangerous happens in rela life, you don't waste time looking around for best tactics, either you fight or run NOW!"
> 
> End of rant.




I use to have a few players who did this. Then I implemented the 30 second rule. I kept track, secretly, of the time a player took during their turn. When it got to 30 seconds and they hadn't done anything, or figured out what they were going to do, I'd say "Time's up" and move to the next person. I did it this way because some people, usually the one's who can't make up their minds, have a hard time under pressure and they'll keep looking at the clock and get nervous rather than plan their move.

I haven't had to do it in a while and I've still got the same players.


----------



## Crothian

I don't buy it.  Having played things like Buffy that do have a simiplier system I found that character generation was faster for those who knew what they wanted.  People unsure of characters take longer no matter what the system.  Combat, was definately faster.  A single d10 rolled, damage pre figured out, a big table with all the manuvuers on it for easy reference, the game supplied us with the things we needed.  

It also had less of a learning curse for the players.  So, over the course of two session the players become very proficient with all aspects of the game, even ones their characters were notr concerned with.  

But speed is not just based on the system.  If the players are indicisive and none creative, if the DM doesn't know what he is doing or not able to relaly think fast; the game is going to take a long time.


----------



## DaveMage

The question is, what is "rules-lite" and what is "rules-insufficient"?

Some games that claim to be rules-lite (and perhaps it's some of these games that Dancey observed) but they really may be "rules-insufficient".  

For me, I like having things defined simply for consistency.  In 1E/2E, I didn't always remember what I ruled for a particular circustance, so I like that in 3E so much more is explained - just so I can be consistent.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer

I certainly would disagree with Mr. Dancey as a whole that rules-lite systems fail to deliver what they promote. Sounds like someone trying to justify their increasingly rules-heavy system.

Having said that, I'll agree that character creation and dispute arbitration probably take roughly the same amount of time, rules-lite or rules heavy. After all, arguing is arguing, whether it's about gaming rules or whether Thai or Indian curries are better-tasting.

If tested for combat and action-resolution, I think rules-lite systems would show their advantages. In my experiences of playing C&C or even OD&D verus 3e (or if you want to get really ornate, Traveller: TNE spaceship combat  ), combat is about twice as fast (and twice as fun, but that's subjective) in the rules-lite systems.


----------



## reveal

Jyrdan Fairblade said:
			
		

> If tested for combat and action-resolution, I think rules-lite systems would show their advantages. In my experiences of playing C&C or even OD&D verus 3e (or if you want to get really ornate, Traveller: TNE spaceship combat  ), combat is about twice as fast (and twice as fun, but that's subjective) in the rules-lite systems.




I can definitely see how combat would be faster. Less rules = Less options in combat.

But the quoted statement mentioned only character creation and argument resolution. If there are no clearly defined rules, then it's really all a matter of personal preference. Player A could say "Well, my last DM would let me do this." And the GM would say "But that's not how I do it in my game." I can see that leading to a lot of arguments because a rule is not truly defined. I would think it would take work on the parts of both the players and the GM to decide what they can and cannot do. To me, that sounds like just as much work as trying to learn a "rules heavy" system.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

I agree that trying to play D&D without the the rules for D&D wouldn't save much time. I don't think that tells us much, though.

If both players and GM have been trained to look to the rules to adjudicate everything, it's almost a tautology to say that rules that don't adjudicate everything won't be helpful to them. Similarly, if a group includes people who enjoy arguing details, a lack of detail just shifts where the arguments happen.

Our group plays rules-light. We don't try to provide mechanically balanced tactical wargame action. We don't try to simulate a fantasy environment in precise detail, either. If we did, heavy rulesets would be useful -- but we have zero interest in those things. And when we run into a difference of opinion at the table, everyone works together to resolve it quickly so we can get on with play. (Then again, we do that when we play Scrabble, too.)

Our group has one total newcomer, one person who's played freeform online games, and two D&D'ers. The D&D'ers were the players I've had to work with most heavily, because they've been taught that one has to be "good enough to be an on the fly game designer" to come up with interesting ideas. That's only true if you presuppose that interesting ideas must bring with them lots of rules.

I don't know if Ryan hasn't met groups whose styles are appropriate for a lighter ruleset, or if he doesn't care, because they're not his target market. But I think one or the other is the case. I do think either way it's a rather disappointing lack of analysis of the situation.


----------



## mcrow

I have played several of the "lite" systems and Ryan's statements make absolutely no sense to me. Most of the people I know what were total rpg noobs can't roll up a d20 character on their own after reading the PHB. In fact most of them needed a little help even after doing it a couple times. The lite sytsems I have played (AFMBE,Tri-stat, and the like) I can go over it the first time and most of the players will be able on their own afterwords. 

As far as mechanics goes d20 is not much more difficult IMO than most lite systems in actual play. Players in my groups have picked up the basic rules in the first session whether rules lite or d20. 

The type of system makes no difference in ease of solving rules disputes. The players are either rules lawyers or they are not.


----------



## ThirdWizard

Some people can't play rules-lite easily. Take someone who loves their rules-heavy system and put a rules-lite system in front of them and the game will slow down because it goes against their gaming style. Take someone who loves rules-lite systems and give them a rules-heavy system and they'll slow down because now they have all this extra information to use that they arn't used to.

To thine own RPG be true.


----------



## fredramsey

You know, the more I read about this guy, the more I think he is a total boob.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

I backed up that thread a bit to see where the discussion had originated, and it's interesting. Here's Dancy's original comment, about "20 minutes of game in 4 hours":



> Many RPG sessions consist of a very limited amount of "roleplaying game", surrounded by a lot of argument, community dialog, eating, and other distractions.
> 
> Dave Wise, who was one of my Brand Managers at WotC, and was a talented writer and editor for TSR, is married to the person who first made the observation, after watching his gaming group, that D&D seemed like 20 minutes of fun packed into four hours - which was her way of saying "shouldn't this game be more fun, considering the work and time everyone seems to be putting into it?"
> 
> I agree with her. It should be more fun.
> 
> We suffer the inefficiencies of the current RPG systems becuase they're better than other options: cops & robbers, playing house, or improv theater. But that doesn't mean that we should be satisfied. A lot of the work that went into 3E was focused on making the game more consistent because consistency is a hallmark of efficiency. 3E is just demonstrably easier to play than 2E because of this level of consistency. Even so, we may have produced a net effect of subtracting 5 minutes of "non fun" and adding four minutes of "fun" at best. That still leaves a massive gap for improvement.




To which someone responded:



> The 4 hours/20 minutes issue is the first one a lot of gamers who've switched to lighter systems cite, and one that is certainly not as ubiquitous to gaming as it is to D&D (Except insofar as D&D is ubiquitous in gaming)
> 
> This is certainly not a lightness uber alles assertion, but I think it's unreasonable to consider the only solution to the time compression is to go all the way to house/(Cops&Robbers)/improv.




And that's when Dancy made the point that started this thread.

I found that very interesting. And I think it means Dancy's really missed the mark here. If your group spends 80% of their time doing non-gaming related things, that's a social issue, and one that rules of any complexity are utterly unsuited to resolve. (He pretty much admits that the quote above -- saying if they removed 5 minutes of arguing in favor of 4 minutes of rules consulting, it was a net win)

Personally, I think this is all social contract stuff. Our group sets aside the first half hour of a session for pizza and socializing, and we wait till we have all the kibitzing out of our system before we get down to business. (We also regularly get together for non-gaming related activities.) And we just plain *don't* fight over rules, because, not to be too blunt, but we don't have friends who use argument to get what they want. 

You can't adjudicate that everybody gets along and focuses on the game, but designers could make some attempt to discuss the social side of gaming. Even things like advice on how to keep people focused and hold their attention would help. But I think that the fact that Ryan's pretty much saying rules-heavy is their preferred way to deal with non-rules issues is extremely telling.


----------



## Andre

The quote implies that the groups had not used the specific rules-lite systems before he observed them. Rules-lite systems rarely show their benefits in the very first session, but in the 3rd, 4th, 5th sessions. 

Additionally, I think Mr. Dancey ignores a major benefit of most rules-lite systems: less prep time for the GM. I remember being able to stat out dozens of encounters in 1E in the same time it takes me to stat out a handful in 3E. In fact, the suggestion I hear most often to speed up prep time is to ignore most of the rules about characters/creatures and just stat out the most important pieces - in other words, create one's own rules-lite version of 3E.


----------



## fredramsey

GM prep time was big reason I recently switched from 3.5 to Savage Worlds. With D&D, I had to spend two evenings, use E-Tools, a word processor, several books, etc. to get ready for a session.

With Savage Worlds, I lie in bed with a pencil and a spiral notebook, most often with only one book, and it takes me about an hour.

There are things that speed up play as well, but GM time is the most important reason for me.


----------



## mcrow

I think there is a pretty good chance he has never played a lite system before. If he did he would realize that the learing curve and prep time is much lower in lite systems.  Lite systems will typically have less realism than d20, but d20 is not exaclty the most realistic system either.


----------



## der_kluge

I think this has a lot to do with the players and the GMs.

3rd edition has more rules than say, C&C, and unless the players know all those rules, play is going to get bogged down in looking them up.

At least in C&C, the CK has more flexibility in being able to just adjudicate on the fly, versus having to memorize a lot of different rules.

It's not better, though, necessarily. Some people like consistency.


----------



## Silverleaf

DaveMage said:
			
		

> The question is, what is "rules-lite" and what is "rules-insufficient"?
> 
> Some games that claim to be rules-lite (and perhaps it's some of these games that Dancey observed) but they really may be "rules-insufficient".
> 
> For me, I like having things defined simply for consistency.  In 1E/2E, I didn't always remember what I ruled for a particular circustance, so I like that in 3E so much more is explained - just so I can be consistent.




It's all hot air, he's just trying to model a "study" after a premeditated conclusion.  The guy wouldn't know anything about a rules-light RPG if it hit him on the head. 
Back in my early teens, we used to play rules-light games at school (between classes) because it avoided carrying lots of junk around, was easy to teach, and the game moved fast.  I used the Fighting Fantasy engine oftentimes, it's got only 3 stats and uses 2d6 for all task resolution.  I didn't care much about consistency of rules, all that mattered is that we had fun.  I wasn't a game designer, or even tried to be one.  I was just a kid with some imagination.  And that, combined with the tiny FF ruleset was plenty enough to run fun games in very short timespans, even teaching the rules on-the-fly if I had to.  For that matter, character creation took as long as it takes to roll 2d6 three times.


----------



## Jupp

Hehe nice try from Mr. Dancey but I dont buy it according to the experience I had with 3E D&D/1e/C&C. 

That character creation is taking as long in rules lite systems and rules-heavier systems I cannot believe. Char creation in D&D vs. C&C is like two worlds. Where in D&D it can take hours (no joke) I have yet to see someone having longer than 30 mins for a C&C character. And of that time 15-20 mins is to make a decision on what class it should be and what race the player wants to play. That leaves 15-10 min for rolling the dice and filling out the char sheet. 

Also the argument that there are too many arguments in the game has to be specified. If you put a group of long time 3e players together to have a session of C&C you will sure as heck run into that kind of situation because those players are just not used to that kind of gameplay. On the other hand if you give them a few sessions and let them get used to the new way of gaming then the whole thing could look totally different. 

The argument that the DM has to be much "better" in rules-lite systems cannot be taken as it stands as well. I mean, in systems like D&D you have to be a walking rules encyclopedia to have a fluent and fast gameplay in your session, otherwise you are left sitting at the table searching in every book for that rule.  I would say a DM that has all the important 3E rules in his head is as hard to find.

The term "on the fly game designer" is also quite strange. It's not that rules lite DMs always create their adventure on the fly. They prepare adventures and encounter as everyone else does, at least most of the time. Perhaps he meant that those DMs have to "wing it" more often but if that is the case he somehow doesnt understand completely how rules lite systems are played.



> 2) Game experience is not portable. What you learn with one GM may be exactly the opposite of how the rules are applied when you switch GMs. This creates network inefficiencies. Network inefficencies are bad.




That's the best one. I have been a player in about 4 different 3E games that went for 2-3 years before switching to 1E or C&C and not a single DM gave me the same game experience as the other one. Roleplaying is not defined by rules, it's defined by how the players interact with the gameworld and how the DM (re)acts toward the players and the gameworld. You can have as many rules as you want, it doesnt make a good DM out of a bad DM or a good game out of a bad game(world)  :\


----------



## Nikosandros

Hmmm... I utterly disagree both with Mr. Dancey and with Mike Mearls original post.

I have GMed rules light games (often even free-form games) many, many times and things have always been fast and smooth...

I'm also looking forward to a new edition of RQ and I hope that Mongoose will do a good job.

Both Dancey and Mearls seem to think that in a perfect world everybody would play some variant of D20 and every game publishers should just tweak D20 instead of having its own system...

Much as I like D20 I can't help but wonder how anyone with solid experience in RPGs can really think that...


----------



## Psion

Boy, this one made the rules lite advocates jump up and yelp, didn't it?  "It's not troooo...!"

Well, I'm not so sure I can agree completely with Ryan on this one... I have a hard time seeing WEG SW chargen taking as long as 3e Chargen. But then, it's a do-once activity and I find the end results of 3e much more satisfying.

But I would have to agree I find the supposed benefits of rules light games greatly exagarated, and think that the role of consistency in running a smooth game is undervalued.


----------



## mearls

Here's a simple test:

Name a "rules lite" RPG that remained in print and actively supported by a publisher for more than 5 years.

I think only Amber (a completely genius design, BTW) meets this criteria.

In the current marketplace, I can't think of a single rules light game that's thriving. What I think is interesting, and this ties in Ryan's point that people *want* rules lite gaming to succeed, is that I suspect a lot of people think a game is rules lite when it's not.

What's even more interesting is that if you look at the industry over the past 30+ years, only rules heavy games have found and sustained audiences. Amber is perhaps the only exception I can think of (and again, that's a genius design).


----------



## Gentlegamer

Sales and publishing library is the standard for quality of game-play?  Dancey wants us to buy into the "rules heavy" mindset so he keep us buying things we don't need, but think we do.


----------



## Nikosandros

Well, it is certainly true that you really don't need a lot of support material to play rules lite games... as a matter of fact, many of my experiences, as I wrote previously, were with free form games.

BTW, while Amber is a diceless game, I think it is in fact quite rules heavy...


----------



## sword-dancer

Jyrdan Fairblade said:
			
		

> I certainly would disagree with Mr. Dancey as a whole that rules-lite systems fail to deliver what they promote. Sounds like someone trying to justify their increasingly rules-heavy system..



I could second that DSA3 had neither very complicated nor a lot of rules.
A combat between 2 Fighters of reasonable skill with the sword could take hours
Attack-parry-Attack-parry-Attack-parry-Attack-feint-parry-Attack-not parried-scratch and so on... damage was 1d6+4 for a sword minus Damage absorbing from the Armor, which meant about 3 Points of damage against 30 Hitpoints a level one and 50+/- at level 5.
Oh yes every 
Fireball 5 or 7d 6 and for every meter difference to the center of explosion one die was taken from the damage.
If you´ve rolled your stats, chosen your class there were 25 to70 rolls to made to better your skills, every level.



> Having said that, I'll agree that character creation and dispute arbitration probably take roughly the same amount of time, rules-lite or rules heavy



. I don`t see it primary as rules heavy vs rules light to argument/discuss the characters which were playable in a special campaign.


----------



## Nikosandros

Psion said:
			
		

> Boy, this one made the rules lite advocates jump up and yelp, didn't it?  "It's not troooo...!"




Well, it's just that my experience has been quite the opposite...   

Not that I mind more elaborate games... I love both 3.5 and RM.... heck, back when I had much more free time, I used to be a big fan of games such as Advanced Third Reich and Empire in Arms...


----------



## Crothian

I think instead of rules heavy verse rulse light we need rules easy verse rules complex.  Some game are just easier for people to learn and understand and those are the ones that truely go faster.


----------



## mcrow

What does sales have to do with actual nuts & bolts of the game? If a small indie publisher had thrown soemthing like D&D 3ed on the market it would likely have gone OOP like many other already have. Many good or average games have gone OOP while others with much more money (and brand recognition) marketing  and a lesser system have flourished.


----------



## fredramsey

Crothian said:
			
		

> I think instead of rules heavy verse rulse light we need rules easy verse rules complex.  Some game are just easier for people to learn and understand and those are the ones that truely go faster.




You hit the nail on the head.

That is what I like about Savage Worlds. Instead of calling it "Rules Lite", I call it, "Complexity Lite". There are rules for darned near everything (including permanent injury, mass battles, etc.), but the rules are easy to digest and work with.

You bet the people from WOTC are going to jump in there and say these games are inferior. But we are not compelled to listen to them. It is *they* who need to cater to *our* needs if they wish to continue ad naseum.


----------



## scadgrad

As an avid C&C Evangelist, I just wanted to add an interesting observation. I ran a game this past Saturday w/ my old gaming group down in TN. We get together about once every 2 months or so and they've continued to play 3.5 while I've moved on to a C&C/3.X hybrid. I was frankly amazed at how long it took them to make characters and 2 of them only had to update characters from a previous C&C sessions (moving them up a few levels). I think much of it had to do w/ the fact that the game is in many ways so different from the "no holds barred" version of 3.5 that they play w/ every supplemental rule imaginable being allowed into the mix.  

Surprisingly, the one player who'd dropped out of 3.X had his character ready in a snap. In the future, the work around is for me to help each person w/ their character rather than hand out a couple of PHBs and letting them have at it. Familiarity w/ the rules makes it go much quicker and the advantage to the rules-lite approach is that it's just easier to get familiar w/ a smaller rules set. The gang in my current group can bang out characters in just a few minutes. We playtested a mod for TLG the other night and made characters in about 20 minutes or less and off we went. So, IME Andre's comment is dead on. The sessions really pick up as the group grows more familiar with the rules set.

In the end, I think Dancey & Mearls aren't getting the point, or rather, they've already arrived at the point and are just fumbling around for a way to say C&C and True 20 are pieces of dung without so much as coming out and saying it. I do applaud their sense of decorum though.


----------



## sword-dancer

mearls said:
			
		

> Here's a simple test:
> 
> Name a "rules lite" RPG that remained in print and actively supported by a publisher for more than 5 years..



What test would that be?
How many publishers(like Orkworld or Waste World(Manticore)  are gone down becaus of ecenomivcal reasons, not because of their quality?

OTOH D&D i think as DSA had the great advantage of being supported by a majority of players.

Question: How old is sorcerer or CoC.


 Amber is perhaps the only exception I can think of (and again, that's a genius design)


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Psion said:
			
		

> Boy, this one made the rules lite advocates jump up and yelp, didn't it?  "It's not troooo...!"




I had to laugh.


----------



## BiggusGeekus

mcrow said:
			
		

> What does sales have to do with actual nuts & bolts of the game?




It's the only ojbective measure of a game's sucess.  There are many, many subjective measures, but sales is the only real objective one.


----------



## GMSkarka

fredramsey said:
			
		

> You know, the more I read about this guy, the more I think he is a total boob.




Well, to be....very charitable about it, he does have a history of, shall we say, "adjusting" procedures to arrive at the outcome he'd prefer.

In other words, take all of this with a grain of salt the size of Jupiter.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

Jupp said:
			
		

> The term "on the fly game designer" is also quite strange. It's not that rules lite DMs always create their adventure on the fly. They prepare adventures and encounter as everyone else does, at least most of the time. Perhaps he meant that those DMs have to "wing it" more often but if that is the case he somehow doesnt understand completely how rules lite systems are played.




Near as I can figure, he means that game designers are responsible for balance and realism, and all that stuff needs to be figured out ahead of time by experts. Which I think is bunk.

Example: A character is trying to jump a ravine to grab a rope, in the rain. If you can't look in the book to find out what the right modifiers are, then it's on the head of the GM to come up with a target number, and maybe the players will argue, or it'll be too high or too low, or whatever.

To which I go, what the heck game are people playing that this would be worth an argument? If it's dramatic to have a chance of failure, have one, if it's not, don't. Does it really matter if this fictional character is better at grabbing a wet rope than someone would be in real life? Considering that the GM invented the rope, the ravine, and the rain, is there any advantage to measuring the distance and cross-referencing the guy's Jump skill, versus picking a DC that represents how hard you want it to be?

And if picking a difficulty consists of "on-the-fly game design", something that's supposed to be left to the experts, how is it that any of us have run anything other than a published module? 

I think the more interesting questions are things like "how do I come up with interesting characters, situations, and challenges", which is something complex rules don't address anyway.



			
				Jupp said:
			
		

> ...Roleplaying is not defined by rules, it's defined by how the players interact with the gameworld and how the DM (re)acts toward the players and the gameworld. You can have as many rules as you want, it doesnt make a good DM out of a bad DM or a good game out of a bad game(world)  :\




Exactly. The social situation at the game table is the key. If your players enjoy arguing for whatever reason, they'll argue. And the GM could say "Rocks fall, everyone dies" at any time. Neither party does these things, because they want to have a good time, and they can work together as people. If your group can't work together on a basic, person to person level, complex rules just paper over the hole in the wall. If anything, simpler rules make you go "Yeah, there's a hole there, what are we going to do about it?"


----------



## hexgrid

mearls said:
			
		

> Here's a simple test:
> 
> Name a "rules lite" RPG that remained in print and actively supported by a publisher for more than 5 years.
> 
> I think only Amber (a completely genius design, BTW) meets this criteria.
> 
> In the current marketplace, I can't think of a single rules light game that's thriving. What I think is interesting, and this ties in Ryan's point that people *want* rules lite gaming to succeed, is that I suspect a lot of people think a game is rules lite when it's not.
> 
> What's even more interesting is that if you look at the industry over the past 30+ years, only rules heavy games have found and sustained audiences. Amber is perhaps the only exception I can think of (and again, that's a genius design).




Except that the issue raised by the original quote wasn't "Do rules light rpgs sell better than rules heavy rpg?" 

That isn't much of an issue to the actual _players_ of the games in question.


----------



## scadgrad

mearls said:
			
		

> Here's a simple test:
> 
> Name a "rules lite" RPG that remained in print and actively supported by a publisher for more than 5 years....
> 
> 
> ...In the current marketplace, I can't think of a single rules light game that's thriving. What I think is interesting, and this ties in Ryan's point that people *want* rules lite gaming to succeed, is that I suspect a lot of people think a game is rules lite when it's not.




Not sure what benchmark we're using as "rule-lite," but I'd say BD&D hung around for quite a while. And perhaps it's just me, but I find Call of Cthulu to be rules-lite, or at least compared to 3.X, Rolemaster, HERO, etc. Certainly CoC's combat system is fairly simple or at least in my eye it is. Maybe you're on to something w/ this train of thought concerning the "perception of what is rules lite."

I'd certainly be interested to read your speculation as to why we "want rules lite gaming to succeed."


----------



## Umbran

Nikosandros said:
			
		

> Hmmm... I utterly disagree both with Mr. Dancey and with Mike Mearls original post.






> Both Dancey and Mearls seem to think that in a perfect world everybody would play some variant of D20 and every game publishers should just tweak D20 instead of having its own system...




Look again, for a moment, and Mearls' original post - it isn't about lite/heavy at all.  It is about _business_ - what companies are succeeding or failing.  His statements weren't about what sort of rules are best, but simply about who is strong in the market.  Do you dispute his claims?

I've had the luck to play a non-d20 game, rules light, run by Mearls.  I saw no sign of the bias you attribute to him.


----------



## buzz

I find it incredibly interesting that people are mentioning games like AD&D1e, OD&D, and C&C in the same breath as "lite".


----------



## Psion

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> Near as I can figure, he means that game designers are responsible for balance and realism, and all that stuff needs to be figured out ahead of time by experts. Which I think is bunk.




Perhaps. And having lived through the era of Dragon articles proclaiming that only Gygax could tell you what would work in your game, I could certainly agree.

_If_ that was the assertion.

That said, that's not the vibe I get from that particular statement. Try scratching out "by experts", and then not only does your statement more closely resemble his, but it becomes something I agree with. Games do benefit from forethought.


----------



## Voadam

mearls said:
			
		

> Here's a simple test:
> 
> Name a "rules lite" RPG that remained in print and actively supported by a publisher for more than 5 years.
> 
> I think only Amber (a completely genius design, BTW) meets this criteria.
> 
> In the current marketplace, I can't think of a single rules light game that's thriving. What I think is interesting, and this ties in Ryan's point that people *want* rules lite gaming to succeed, is that I suspect a lot of people think a game is rules lite when it's not.
> 
> What's even more interesting is that if you look at the industry over the past 30+ years, only rules heavy games have found and sustained audiences. Amber is perhaps the only exception I can think of (and again, that's a genius design).




Doesn't basic set D&D qualify? Its not until you hit companion and master level rules that weapon mastery and variant class options got introduced. The no skills aspect appeals to me as a rules lite game. And it had plenty of support through modules as I remember it (B1-9).


----------



## scadgrad

buzz said:
			
		

> I find it incredibly interesting that people are mentioning games like AD&D1e, OD&D, and C&C in the same breath as "lite".




Well Buzz, do enlighten the Great Unwashed. If you're asserting that C&C is rules heavy for instance, what would you call 3.X and Rolemaster?


----------



## buzz

DaveMage said:
			
		

> The question is, what is "rules-lite" and what is "rules-insufficient"?



I thnk this is an important point. I'd be curious to see which games were used in Dancey's (or what company he worked for at the time's) test. I think that an RPG can be fairly "lite" while still providing more guidance than just GM fiat. Eden's _Buffy_ does a pretty good job of this.


----------



## Psion

scadgrad said:
			
		

> Well Buzz, do enlighten the Great Unwashed. If you're asserting that C&C is rules heavy for instance, what would you call 3.X and Rolemaster?




False dichotomy. Just because those aren't qualifiably light compared to the likes of true rules light games like Over The Edge, doesn't mean he was calling them rules heavy.


----------



## BiggusGeekus

Voadam said:
			
		

> Doesn't basic set D&D qualify? Its not until you hit companion and master level rules that weapon mastery and variant class options got introduced. The no skills aspect appeals to me as a rules lite game. And it had plenty of support through modules as I remember it (B1-9).




One might say that the basic and expert sets were supported in part by AD&D and the companion/master sets.  You can play _Keep on the Borderlands_ using 1e and even 2e rules.  The PCs will clean the monster's clocks with weapon specialization, but it's so easy to convert that most people wouldn't bother converting it in the first place.

Also, what year did the basic set with the Elmore cover come out?  I'd argue that was the last incarnation of Basic.

edit: struck out above line as it is the 7th most stupid thing I've seen today.


----------



## Nikosandros

Umbran said:
			
		

> Look again, for a moment, and Mearls' original post - it isn't about lite/heavy at all.  It is about _business_ - what companies are succeeding or failing.  His statements weren't about what sort of rules are best, but simply about who is strong in the market.  Do you dispute his claims?
> 
> I've had the luck to play a non-d20 game, rules light, run by Mearls.  I saw no sign of the bias you attribute to him.




It is certainly possible that I've missread the original post, so that I failed to understand Mearls opinion on Mongoose redoing RQ...

However, regarding the rules light argument, I was commenting on Dancey statements that such games are not actually faster to run... something that has not been my experience at all. This has nothing to do with what sells well...

In any case, I lumped to different things in one post and probably did quite a poor job of it...


----------



## Mark

buzz said:
			
		

> From Ryan Dancey via Mike Mearls' blog:
> 
> I observed (2-way mirror) several groups who were given "rules lite" RPG systems as a part of an effort to understand how they were used and if the "liteness" was actually delivering any utility value. Using a stopwatch, we found that consistently zero time was saved in character creation, or adjudicating disputes. In fact, in some games, disputes lasted substantially longer because the GM could not just point to a written rule in a book and call the argument closed.
> 
> 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.






			
				Silverleaf said:
			
		

> It's all hot air, he's just trying to model a "study" after a premeditated conclusion.




Dancey has lost a great deal of his credibility since the GAMA fiasco.  There was a time when I would have bought into such a claim as true.  Fact of the matter is that there is no way that such experimentation could be conducted on a large enough scale and in the manner in which he claims to glean believable results.  How would you remove enough of the variables to allow you to make such a judgment?  Common sense simply doesn't allow me to believe what Ryan Dancey is putting forth here.



			
				mearls said:
			
		

> What's even more interesting is that if you look at the industry over the past 30+ years, only rules heavy games have found and sustained audiences.




Well, I've been observing for more than 30 years and I doubt that anything but a rules-heavy system could generate enough product to bring in enough profit to justify an expenditure on marketing that would sustain it for a long time.  If a rules-light system managed this I would consider it a fluke.  There are only a few rules-heavy systems that have truly done it and they have been revised and supported with a vast array of peripheral rules supplement books.

For the record, I don't advocate rules-heavy or rules-light systems, in particular, I mostly play D&D (since 1974) because it has always afforded me the best chance to find players.  It's a simple matter of swimming in the biggest pool for me.


----------



## eyebeams

Rules heavy games are for gamers. Rules light games are for gamers who are friends.


----------



## buzz

scadgrad said:
			
		

> Well Buzz, do enlighten the Great Unwashed.



There is absolutely no reason for you to get snarky nor try to intimate that I'm being some sort of gaming snob. Your tone is uncalled for.



			
				scadgrad said:
			
		

> If you're asserting that C&C is rules heavy for instance, what would you call 3.X and Rolemaster?



I didn't assert that C&C is rules heavy. I'm simply making a case for it not being "rules lite". 256pp of core rules (PH and M&T, which the TLG site states are the required minimum) isn't really all that "lite" in my estimation. And I would deifnitely not put AD&D1e in that category. OD&D might slip by...

"Lite" is _Buffy_, or _Sorcerer_, or _Risus_. C&C is in a middle-ground, nearby the early editions of D&D that eventually birthed "rules heavy".

IMO.

If you want to do some testing with "lite" RPGs, you give test subjects _Everway_ or _The Window_.


----------



## scadgrad

Psion said:
			
		

> False dichotomy. Just because those aren't qualifiably light compared to the likes of true rules light games like Over The Edge, doesn't mean he was calling them rules heavy.





Perhaps not, but that's certainly what I inferred, especially given the fact that he included C&C in the same group w/ 1st ed AD&D which was decidedly complex by most reasonable standards of measurement. Or at least those standards of measurment other than the ones that Diaglo might use.


----------



## BryonD

The ultimate rules lite role playing is played by children everywhere.  It goes like this:
"Bang! I got you!"
"No you didn't!"
"Yes I did!"

Most rules lite market RPGs tend to be a bit more elaborate, but ultimately the same at heart.

There is of course one way to avoid this matter, that being to have a GM who everyone agrees to accept the ruling of.
This goes one of two ways:
Either the GM rules on whim from one event to the next, which leads to inconsistency and is really more a cooperative drama session than a game

OR

the GM rules consistently, which means that the GM uses the same rules each time, therefore the game isn't really rules lite, it is just lots of rules that happen to not be written down anywhere.

I don't have any problem with free-form cooperative drama role playing.  But I happen to prefer to keep the game in with my role playing.


----------



## EricNoah

There are probably at least two stripes of RPG player:  those who find more rules "liberating" in the sense that they outline the things you're allowed to do and they remove the burden of on-the-spot judgement calls; and those who find fewer rules "liberating" in the sense that they don't limit what you can do and give the GM power to make on-the-spot judgement calls.  There's certainly room in this world for both kinds of players, though I can certainly see why there might be some tension between the two camps.  

The questions in my mind are:  
can an RPG company make more money by creating resources for one type over the other, or should they cater to both types?  
Can one RPG product satisfy both types enough to make it worth the "fluff/crunch" balancing act?  
Is one style of play more or less likely to draw new players to the hobby?  
Is one style of play more or less likely to encourage players to take on the DM's mantle?  
Is one style of play more or less likely to help sell not only books but gaming "hardware" such as miniatures?  
Is one style of play more or less likely to lead to future purchases from the company creating the game?  
Is one style of material likely to lend itself more or less to those who like to create homebrewed rules material (i.e. is one or the other likely to lead to the DM developing new subsystems or add-ons by desire as opposed to necessity; is one or the othery more "toolkit-ish" in approach, etc.)?  
Does the presence of a lot of crunch necessarily squash creativity?  
(I believe the prevailing SENTIMENT is that it does, but is there a way to measure it -- or is sentiment/perception the only valid concern -- i.e. if you THINK it squashes your creativity, then you're less satisfied with it.)  
Does the absence of crunch lead to the perception of decreased value (i.e. the "any chump can come up with fluff, it takes professionals to design functional rules" argument)?  
If you publish rules-lite material, do you have less material that will sell to players? I.e. are players the primary consumers of crunch?  
Is there a point at which "fewer rules" makes the DM's job very burdensome?  Is there a point at which "more rules" lead to a situation so complex that it is actually easier to just fly by the seat of your pants?  

I think we can deduce WotC's answers to these questions by their business practices, but it is an ever-changing thing -- we've seen books that were more rules-heavy, some that were less rules-heavy, some that better integrated the rules into the other parts of the book, etc. They're still probably seeking the ideal mix and there's a good chance that there is NO ideal mix...


----------



## jmucchiello

Crothian said:
			
		

> It also had less of a learning *curse* for the players.



This is such a great typo.

I find prep time for rules lite games just as long as for rules heavy games. But only because a session of each type of game of equal length will include far more "adventure" in the rules lite game.

But I also consider just about every game mentioned in this thread rules heavy. Risus (6 pages) and similar games are rules lite. Any game where rules (and non-setting material) take up 100+ pages is not rules light.


----------



## Mythmere1

Wow, what a bizarre assertion...was Mr. Dancey using humans or lab rats in his experiment?
Anyone who thinks Savage Worlds or Castles & Crusades don't play faster or create characters faster is using some weird control group.

I can see some people not LIKING Castles & Crusades, for example, but jeez, it's Alice in Wonderland to say it isn't faster than D&D.  Speed of GM prep is one of my favorite parts of C&C.  Yes, rules lite games require more GM adjudication (which is why a more gamist player might not like them), but adjudication is still way faster than rules-lookup.


----------



## Psion

Mark said:
			
		

> I doubt that anything but a rules-heavy system could generate enough product to bring in enough profit to justify an expenditure on marketing that would sustain it for a long time.  If a rules-light system managed this I would consider it a fluke.




I thought about that earlier; that might be more indicative of _sales_ than popularity. But what about _persistence_? Perhaps it's the case that it's _fresh product_ that keeps a game alive, something oft asserted elsewhere, and it's more than rules heavy games lend themselves to this model than rules light games moreso than any enduring appeal of the rules which leads to the enduring popularity of heavier games compared to light games.

In fact, I'd go so far to say I beleive that is the case.

That said, GURPS (a game I do not consider rules light) consistently produces supplements that are usually somewhat to very light on actual rules material. Why couldn't a rules light game follow the GURPS model?

Or is it just that none have?


----------



## fredramsey

You know, the more I think about this whole thead, the more I realize that here we have two of the biggest names in gaming, working for the one company that doesn't have to worry each month about going completely belly-up, and they are attacking smaller games like some kind of spoiled children.

And that irritates me. Those guys are on the top. They won't gain more customers or improve their market share by marginalizing other game systems. They should, instead, paint WOTC as the "gamer's friend" who believes in the idea that we all share a common interest.

Am I the only one who sees their statements as juvenile and pointless?


----------



## GMSkarka

Psion said:
			
		

> ...the enduring popularity of heavier games compared to light games.




Only if you change the yard markers.   Remember that back in 91, VAMPIRE was being touted as an example of rules-light gaming.    It certainly has endured, for more than the Dancey-Mearls-requisite 5 years....


----------



## Nighthawk

Mark said:
			
		

> For the record, I don't advocate rules-heavy or rules-light systems, in particular, I mostly play D&D (since 1974) because it has always afforded me the best chance to find players.  It's a simple matter of swimming in the biggest pool for me.




This is something I very much agree with. It is true for me as well and will continue to remain that way, I think.


----------



## Psion

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Only if you change the yard markers.   Remember than back in 91, VAMPIRE was being touted as an example of rules-light gaming.




Not by me. 

(And, as I recall, Rolemaster was in print back then.  )


----------



## Crothian

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Only if you change the yard markers.   Remember that back in 91, VAMPIRE was being touted as an example of rules-light gaming.    It certainly has endured, for more than the Dancey-Mearls-requisite 5 years....




Ya, but Vampire didn't stay Ruules lite for long if it every was.


----------



## scadgrad

buzz said:
			
		

> There is absolutely no reason for you to get snarky nor try to intimate that I'm being some sort of gaming snob. Your tone is uncalled for.
> 
> 
> I didn't assert that C&C is rules heavy. I'm simply making a case for it not being "rules lite". 256pp of core rules (PH and M&T, which the TLG site states are the required minimum) isn't really all that "lite" in my estimation. And I would deifnitely not put AD&D1e in that category. OD&D might slip by...
> 
> "Lite" is _Buffy_, or _Sorcerer_, or _Risus_. C&C is in a middle-ground, nearby the early editions of D&D that eventually birthed "rules heavy".
> 
> IMO.
> 
> If you want to do some testing with "lite" RPGs, you give test subjects _Everway_ or _The Window_.




I wasn't trying to be "snarky" (good word by the way), just taking a stab at being humorous which as usual is exceedingly difficult on the web.

I have played The Window and liked it very much actually. Everway didn't do much for me though. My definition for rules lite happens to be "those games which are significantly less complex than 3.5" which is essentially the touchstone game for not only this thread, but the entire site. To that end, I consider games either lite on rules or heavy on them. It would seem to me that considering only games such as Buffy (w/ its 256 pages of rules by-the-by, hole in your logic perhaps?) and The Window as being the hallmarks of "rules-liteism" as perhaps a bit too narrow, though again, I don't go in for the rules-medium definition. YMMV.


----------



## EricNoah

It occurs to me that "amount of time" is only one measure... what about "quality of experience" -- i.e. if I spend the same amount of time generating a character in system X and system Y, but I enjoyed myself more in system X, then system X wins.  If the time and enjoyment of character creation are equal, but then I have a better time playing the game with system Y, then Y wins.  If I'm the DM and prepping system Y is a chore, then X wins.  Etc.  

There are many other measures, and it depends on whether you're the company or the gamer:  am I more likely to buy future products with X or Y?  Am I more likely to recruit other players with X or Y?  And other questions I posed a couple of posts back.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

I have to keep repeating to myself that Mearls and Dancy are concerned with what keeps selling product. That keeps me from going "Man, they don't get it."

Really, I'm the one that doesn't get it, not from their perspective. I've run two campaigns in the past two years, and am starting another one soon. One system was free, another was $50 (including two supplements), and the third was $15. None of my players have had to buy more than pencils and paper.

I spend plenty of money in search of ideas -- it's just that I buy novels and DVDs, and watch movies and television. I have enough rules, so I get creative fodder from sources that are 100% "fluff". Heck, some of my best inspiration has been free, talking with people about the nature of human relationships.

I am _sooooo_ not their target market. From their perspective, it makes no difference whether I exist or not.

Rather than get miffed, I just need to extend them the same courtesy of indifference. They're not relevant to me, I'm not relevant to them, it's all good. No offense given or taken.


----------



## BiggusGeekus

Psion said:
			
		

> That said, GURPS (a game I do not consider rules light)




You don't say? 



> consistently produces supplements that are usually somewhat to very light on actual rules material. Why couldn't a rules light game follow the GURPS model?
> 
> Or is it just that none have?




Well, what's to add?

I can think of setting and adventures.  With setting you run the risk of turning the game into a travelogue.  Besides _Buffy: The Dayton Chronicles_ doesn't sound like it would be any more or less different than adventures in Sunnydale.  

Adventures I can see.  But adventures don't sell that well.  2nd edition _Paranoia_ manged a bunch of them, but a lot of those were joke books for the DM.  _Yellow Clearance Black Box Blues_ was a hillarious read, but it was kind of a dud to play.  So those weren't really adventures so much as they were fiction designed to torture the PCs.  And if I'm going to torture my players, I'm going to do it with a cheese grater, like Mom always did.


----------



## buzz

Mark said:
			
		

> Dancey has lost a great deal of his credibility since the GAMA fiasco.  There was a time when I would have bought into such a claim as true.



FWIW, Dancey states explciitly that this is his opinion, and presents the anecdotal evidence that led him to form said opinion. I'm willing to give his opinion some weight simply based on his experience, and the test situation he describes is more formal than any observation I've been abel to make.

While his opinion may not be 100% irrefutable, I think there's a germ of some kind of truth in there.



			
				Mark said:
			
		

> Well, I've been observing for more than 30 years and I doubt that anything but a rules-heavy system could generate enough product to bring in enough profit to justify an expenditure on marketing that would sustain it for a long time.



Perhaps, but haven't we also been told many times that it's the sales of core books that really provide most companys' meat and potatoes? If a truly "lite" RPG had really connected with an audience, isn't it possible that it would have sustained itself even wihtout a barraeg of supplements? 

I mean, most boardgames are just a single product, right? If Monopoly or Risk can sustain itself for decades with basically a single product (keeping in mind the theme sets are a pretty recent thing), why couldn't an RPG?

I think the closest exmples we can find of rules-lighter games that have sustained themselves are _Vampire_ and _Call of Cthulhu_. The latter could possibly be considered "lite", but the former is still somewhere in the middle. Their product lines also seem to focus less on crunch and more on adventures and setting material. Granted, CoC isn't really a big player anymore...

Ultimately, I think that truly "lite" RPGs simply appeal to a very limited audience. Contrary to popular belief, it's really the experienced gamer that is drawn to system that let them rely less on rules and more on their own years of experience. Yes, it may be that "lite" games are easier for newbies to learn, but, IMO, only when aided by the guidance of an experienced gamer (barring an exceptionally-written rulebook). Give something like _Everway_ to a group of nothing but newbies and you'll see a lot of head-scratching. Give them something like the Basic Set (a focused version of a complex game that provide clear goals for gameplay), and you give birth to a hobby.


----------



## DaveMage

buzz said:
			
		

> I find it incredibly interesting that people are mentioning games like AD&D1e, OD&D, and C&C in the same breath as "lite".




Well, compared to 3.5E in it's current state, of course.  

However, I'm not sure you can really compare D&D 3.5E to anything at this point.   No other game system has the support of dozens of companies making products for it.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

fredramsey said:
			
		

> You know, the more I think about this whole thead, the more I realize that here we have two of the biggest names in gaming, working for the one company that doesn't have to worry each month about going completely belly-up, and they are attacking smaller games like some kind of spoiled children.




On the other hand, what I see are two of the biggest names in gaming making an comment based on some observed phenomena (whether or not you agree with the rigor of their data collection methodology*), and those people who are the supporters of "smaller games" - the underdogs, if you will - are just aching to be insulted so that they can point to the big guys and say, with injured nerd-pride, "We're better than them; see?"

* - To put it succinctly, "Ryan Dancey's results are not typical of my experience with rules lighter systems, and therefore I don't trust any conclusions based on his data" is a valid criticism of his comments.

"Ryan Dancey's a putz!" is not valid.

In this thread, I see a whole crapload of the latter, and not very much of the former.


----------



## buzz

scadgrad said:
			
		

> Perhaps not, but that's certainly what I inferred



Indeed. 

"Inference, on the other hand, is the activity performed by a reader or interpreter in drawing conclusions that are not explicit in what is said."

I lumped all of those games together because they were all being referred to as "lite" in this thread.


----------



## Campbell

Psion said:
			
		

> I thought about that earlier; that might be more indicative of _sales_ than popularity. But what about _persistence_? Perhaps it's the case that it's _fresh product_ that keeps a game alive, something oft asserted elsewhere, and it's more than rules heavy games lend themselves to this model than rules light games moreso than any enduring appeal of the rules which leads to the enduring popularity of heavier games compared to light games.
> 
> In fact, I'd go so far to say I beleive that is the case.
> 
> That said, GURPS (a game I do not consider rules light) consistently produces supplements that are usually somewhat to very light on actual rules material. Why couldn't a rules light game follow the GURPS model?
> 
> Or is it just that none have?




While I wouldn't call White Wolf's Storyteller games rules light, although they are certainly less rules heavy then D&D, I'd say that much of their success has come from following the GURPS model. Although by focusing on a single setting, rather than producing more generic content setting bloat rather than rules bloat occurs.


----------



## Mark

Psion said:
			
		

> I thought about that earlier; that might be more indicative of _sales_ than popularity.





In the above discussion, for good or for ill, _sales_ is being used as the measure of popularity but I understand what you are saying and the point you are making.  It would be hard, however, to accurately gage how many people are currently playing, for example, 1E GURPS, so we are left with _sales_ as the beanchmark by which we can measure success of a brand.  And I do think it is important to stress that what has been referred to as a "system" should more accurately be labeled as a "brand" for the sake of this discussion since the system used by a brand can change a great deal over time.  What edition of GURPS is current, btw?


----------



## buzz

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> But I also consider just about every game mentioned in this thread rules heavy. Risus (6 pages) and similar games are rules lite. Any game where rules (and non-setting material) take up 100+ pages is not rules light.



Bingo.


----------



## BiggusGeekus

Mark said:
			
		

> What edition of GURPS is current, btw?




They just came out with 4th.

3rd lasted a long time.


----------



## fredramsey

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> * - To put it succinctly, "Ryan Dancey's results are not typical of my experience with rules lighter systems, and therefore I don't trust any conclusions based on his data" is a valid criticism of his comments.
> 
> "Ryan Dancey's a putz!" is not valid.
> 
> In this thread, I see a whole crapload of the latter, and not very much of the former.




True. But my point (not very well expressed, mind you) is why they felt it necessary to "talk trash" about other systems? And yes, no matter how many "this is my opinion"s you use, it comes out as trash talk.

As far as I am concerned, it paints them and their company in a bad light. High-profile people are representatives of their company 24 hours a day. It's part of the job. So why stir things up like this? What good does it do them?

If anything, I suppose, it could steer more people to smaller, friendly game companies and systems. After this, I certainly hope it does.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

Something I don't get, which may just be my own perspective getting in the way, is why rules-light games are perceived as "Cops & Robbers".A badly designed rules light game can, but nobody's defending badly designed games. 

HeroQuest, Sorcerer, The Pool, Primetime Adventures, Dogs in the Vineyard, FATE -- one thing these games have in common is that any conflict at all that comes up can be resolved using the basic mechanic. These conflicts can be interesting and challenging. There's little cause for confusion or debate, except perhaps about difficulty levels (which always have to be decided).

There's also lots of things these games don't address. How much I can carry. Whether or not I can jump a seven-foot ditch. How long I can hold my breath. The relative damage of different-size swords. 

But if those things ever came up in an interesting fashion, something involving a conflict with real stakes, you could use the rules to resolve them. And if they don't show up in an interesting fashion, then why do I care?


Similarly, on the topic of appeal to new players, I'm waiting to see more rules-light games that are actually written for them. I can't fault Everway for not producing massive of new roleplayers, because it's not easy for anyone to digest. How many games actually explain how to play? How to GM? I don't mean the usual five pages in the front and a chapter in the back of the GM Guide, but really explain it. 

But look at Dogs in the Vineyard, and it explains what the game's about, how to make a character, and how to resolve conflicts. Then the GM's section explains how to create a scenario from scratch, specifically, in clear terms. I wouldn't give D&D 3.5 or Everway to a group who'd never played before, but if they were interesting in the setting for DitV, I think they could pick it up without help quite easily.


----------



## BiggusGeekus

fredramsey said:
			
		

> True. But my point (not very well expressed, mind you) is why they felt it necessary to "talk trash" about other systems?




I'd call it a concern for the health of the hobby combined with a sense of exasperation from seeing good game concepts go out of print.


Or they're evil and sit back on their thrones, drinking glasses of puppy, lording over the fallen RPGs like vultures over carrion, while John Wick polishes their boots.

I'm guessing the former, but the latter makes for a more interesting mental image.


----------



## fredramsey

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> Something I don't get, which may just be my own perspective getting in the way, is why rules-light games are perceived as "Cops & Robbers".A badly designed rules light game can, but nobody's defending badly designed games.
> 
> HeroQuest, Sorcerer, The Pool, Dogs in the Vineyard, FATE -- one thing these games have in common is that any conflict at all that comes up can be resolved using the basic mechanic. These conflicts can be interesting and challenging. There's little cause for confusion or debate, except perhaps about difficulty levels (which always have to be decided).
> 
> There's also lots of things these games don't address. How much I can carry. Whether or not I can jump a seven-foot ditch. How long I can hold my breath. The relative damage of different-size swords.
> 
> But if those things ever came up in an interesting fashion, something involving a conflict with real stakes, you could use the rules to resolve them. And if they don't show up in an interesting fashion, then why do I care?





^^^^ What he said.


----------



## kenobi65

fredramsey said:
			
		

> You know, the more I think about this whole thead, the more I realize that here we have two of the biggest names in gaming, working for the one company that doesn't have to worry each month about going completely belly-up, and they are attacking smaller games like some kind of spoiled children.




FWIW, Ryan Dancey has not worked for WotC for, what, at least 3 years now?


----------



## buzz

fredramsey said:
			
		

> You know, the more I think about this whole thead, the more I realize that here we have two of the biggest names in gaming, working for the one company that doesn't have to worry each month about going completely belly-up, and they are attacking smaller games like some kind of spoiled children.



Ryan Dancey no longer works for WotC. Prior to working for WotC, Dancey worked with AEG, on lines that were crtainly "lite"-er than D&D/d20, e.g., Lot5R and 7th Sea. Dancey was also the motive force behind the OGL, i.e., the reason you can download 97% of the rules for D&D and d20M for free.

Mearls has worked for WotC for all of about a week and a half. Most of his career to this point has been freelancing for small companies with none of the financial stability of WotC. Given his near-meteoric rise in the RPG design biz, I have a hard time buying into the idea that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I don't see anything they are doing as attacking, and I don't see how ad hominems really help. These are two people whith a lot of genuine experience in the RPG biz. Agree with what they have to say or not, I find it all incredibly insightful.


----------



## fredramsey

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> FWIW, Ryan Dancey has not worked for WotC for, what, at least 3 years now?




I sit corrected. But still


----------



## ThirdWizard

Setting D&D 3E as the baseline of what a rules heavy game is (and anything below that rules-lite) is like setting SLUG (or FUDGE) as the baseline of what a rules-lite game is (and anything above that rules-heavy). D&D 3E is pretty much the height of rules-heavyness, not the standard.


----------



## scadgrad

Mark said:
			
		

> In the above discussion, for good or for ill, _sales_ is being used as the measure of popularity but I understand what you are saying and the point you are making.  It would be hard, however, to accurately gage how many people are currently playing, for example, 1E GURPS, so we are left with _sales_ as the beanchmark by which we can measure success of a brand.  And I do think it is important to stress that what has been referred to as a "system" should more accurately be labeled as a "brand" for the sake of this discussion since the system used by a brand can change a great deal over time.  What edition of GURPS is current, btw?




Absolutely right in that the Dancey/Mearls postulate seems to ignore branding and the inherent value of the brand. WotC dominates the market because it cranks out more Rules Crunch than anyone else? It has has nothing what-so -ever to do w/ the fact that it's the D&D brand their crankin' out "rules heavy for?"

riiiiight.

Look, WotC could have recreated 3.X as simply as The Window for instance, and because of the brand, it would have probably sold like hotcakes due to a combination of factors. The brand and the other marketing elements are clearly more important than the actual rules of the game (anyone actually FINISHED a game of Monopoly lately? Ever?) if we're to use nothing other than raw sales figures to define quality.


----------



## Remathilis

I'll refrain form the classic C&C/D&D 3.X and instead go for my favorite, the d6 SW vs d20 SW for an example.

I can create a non-jedi PC in d20 in 5 minutes. Any level. A jedi takes 10-15. I cannot create any character in d6 under 15 min, despite having alot less steps to go through. While d6 is a lighter system (one mechanic, etc) combat takes ungodly long. Roll to hit. Roll to dodge. Compare rolls to find how hit you are. Roll damage. Soak damage. Repeat. d20? Roll to hit. Compare d20 roll + mods to Defense. Roll damage. Subtract from vitality/wound. Repeat. 

What are the rules for tripping someone in d6? How much damage does fire do? Can I swing across a chasm with a princess in my arms while dodging blaster fire? I KNOW how to do all that in d20, in d6 its either vague or not mentioned.

Perhaps the greatest thing I dislike about rules-lite is being a PLAYER. I feel like I have less control over my own PCs action because ultimately, the guy at the end of the table will be the decider of my action's success and failure, not myself or even impartial dice. If the DM doesn't believe I can swing across the chasm with the princess, He will a.) SAY NO or b.) Make an extremely difficult TN/DC Check. With some formula of rules, I can determine MYSELF my chances of success/failure and decide if I wish to chance it. The DM, of course can asign additional modifiers ("The princess isn't as light as she appears") to keep up tension, but WILL KNOW if the stunt is out of my league. 

This is also what Dancy meant when he said the experience doesn't transfer DMs. Maybe DM A likes Errol Flynn and lets me do it with a decent DC, but DM B is very realistic and doesn't allow it, or makes the DC much higher (and of course, doesn't mention that.) Insue the "DM A lets me do it" arguement. 

I'd rather have a consistant, if heavier, ruled game than trust that my GM will come up with a fair and consistant ruling for such ad hoc options. Want my proof? My players NEVER tried to grapple, bull-rush or trip in combat until 3e rolled along.


----------



## Mark

buzz said:
			
		

> FWIW, Dancey states explciitly that this is his opinion, and presents the anecdotal evidence that led him to form said opinion. I'm willing to give his opinion some weight simply based on his experience, and the test situation he describes is more formal than any observation I've been abel to make.
> 
> While his opinion may not be 100% irrefutable, I think there's a germ of some kind of truth in there.




Opinnions can be wrong, when they are based on false facts.  The ridiculousness of the described methodology of the experiemntation is what sent up red flags for me.  When someone purposefully throws a parade in front of my face my first instnct is to watch out for what I might step in.




			
				buzz said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but haven't we also been told many times that it's the sales of core books that really provide most companys' meat and potatoes?




For D&D, we've been _told_ such but let's not forget that 900 pages of core rules for about $60.00, re-sold after revision several years later for $90.00, and supported (despite what we've been told) by dozens of supplements as opposed to a rules-light booklet that might be able to sell for $20.00 and has a limit to how much support it can offer before it is adding too many rules to call itself rules-light.


----------



## buzz

fredramsey said:
			
		

> True. But my point (not very well expressed, mind you) is why they felt it necessary to "talk trash" about other systems?



Point me to where either of them said anything bad about a specific system.

Not to mention, they're not talking system design, they're talking marketing and sales.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> On the other hand, what I see are two of the biggest names in gaming making an comment based on some observed phenomena (whether or not you agree with the rigor of their data collection methodology*) . . .



My comment based on the observed phenomena of Dancey's reasoning and my interpretation of his motive:

Ryan Dancey is a putz!


----------



## fredramsey

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I'd rather have a consistant, if heavier, ruled game than *trust* that my GM will come up with a fair and consistant ruling for such ad hoc options. Want my proof? My players NEVER tried to grapple, bull-rush or trip in combat until 3e rolled along.




Man. I'm sorry you had such bad experiences.

I couldn't GM my players if they didn't trust *me*. Nor could I play in someone's group if I didn't trust *them*.

Sorry, but that just sounds sad, and a good reason to play computer games.


----------



## GMSkarka

buzz said:
			
		

> I don't see anything they are doing as attacking, and I don't see how ad hominems really help. These are two people whith a lot of genuine experience in the RPG biz. Agree with what they have to say or not, I find it all incredibly insightful.




Mearls is a good designer, absolutely.

Keep in mind though, that Dancey is and always has been primarily an organizational/marketing guy, not a designer.    That, combined with his behavioral history of adjusting facts to suit his theories, well, I pretty much write everything he says off from the word "go."


----------



## Campbell

fredramsey said:
			
		

> True. But my point (not very well expressed, mind you) is why they felt it necessary to "talk trash" about other systems? And yes, no matter how many "this is my opinion"s you use, it comes out as trash talk.
> 
> As far as I am concerned, it paints them and their company in a bad light. High-profile people are representatives of their company 24 hours a day. It's part of the job. So why stir things up like this? What good does it do them?
> 
> If anything, I suppose, it could steer more people to smaller, friendly game companies and systems. After this, I certainly hope it does.




While I agree that Ryan Dancey is lacking in credibility, I'd advise those who are inflamed by his statements to not interpret them as reflective of WotC's views and attitude. Dancey is no longer associated with Wizards in any way.


----------



## Psion

fredramsey said:
			
		

> True. But my point (not very well expressed, mind you) is why they felt it necessary to "talk trash" about other systems? And yes, no matter how many "this is my opinion"s you use, it comes out as trash talk.




Eh.

It's hard for those with invested opinions that his forecast don't look too kindly on to not appreciate his predictions.

But really, what started the blog was commentary on industry events. It's _topical_. And Mike feels he observes a pattern, apparently. (I don't want to speak for him, especially as he has already poked his nose in here today, but that's my perception anyways.)


----------



## Mike Frank

buzz said:
			
		

> From Mike Mearls' blog:
> ...Using a stopwatch, we found that consistently zero time was saved in character creation, or adjudicating disputes. In fact, in some games, disputes lasted substantially longer because the GM could not just point to a written rule in a book and call the argument closed.
> 
> 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.:




 This is nonsense.  ZERO time difference?  What was the resolution of the stopwatch?  Five minutes?
How about the GM creating a 12th level NPC for 3.5e and then create one for a rules lite system. Still think the difference will be zero? Ever have to create an NPC of greater than 4th or 5th level for a random encounter?

I don't want to spend any time pointing at rules. The only rule that a GM should EVER have to point to is the one that says the GM has the final say. And that he should only have to do once per new player. Any arguments will wait until after the session. There are exceptions to this: particularly if it could mean life or death for the PC.


----------



## Silverleaf

Voadam said:
			
		

> Doesn't basic set D&D qualify? Its not until you hit companion and master level rules that weapon mastery and variant class options got introduced. The no skills aspect appeals to me as a rules lite game. And it had plenty of support through modules as I remember it (B1-9).




I consider it rules-light, although it's not as light as say Fighting Fantasy, Twerps, Tunnels & Trolls, etc.
The whole light/medium/heavy is very subjective anyway, since people use different criteria to classify things.


----------



## Desdichado

Jupp said:
			
		

> That character creation is taking as long in rules lite systems and rules-heavier systems I cannot believe. Char creation in D&D vs. C&C is like two worlds. Where in D&D it can take hours (no joke) I have yet to see someone having longer than 30 mins for a C&C character.



I have yet to see a 3.x D&D character that took more than 30 mins too, unless it was a new character at high level, or the player was just really indecisive and sat around wondering what he wanted to do.


----------



## kenobi65

Mythmere1 said:
			
		

> Wow, what a bizarre assertion...was Mr. Dancey using humans or lab rats in his experiment?
> Anyone who thinks Savage Worlds or Castles & Crusades don't play faster or create characters faster is using some weird control group.




I may well be wrong, but I'd be willing to bet that the focus groups that Ryan is referring to were conducted during the development of 3E...when neither of those particular games existed.


----------



## eyebeams

buzz said:
			
		

> Give something like _Everway_ to a group of nothing but newbies and you'll see a lot of head-scratching. Give them something like the Basic Set (a focused version of a complex game that provide clear goals for gameplay), and you give birth to a hobby.




Not really, no. Give Everway to neophyte *gamers* and they won't know what to do. Give Everway to people who have little to no experience with RPGs and the chief problem will be you, the GM, messing with their heads by trying to fit their experience into traditional gaming instead of just playing Everway. An ex of mine has actually run the game quite successfully at a summer camp program using this "non-gamerish" gaming idea.

The fact of the matter is that a sizeable chunk of gaming these days is rules light.

"But eyebeams, this is so outrageous and wrong, and contradicted by market data X!"

Newp. It's just that once it frames itself in a certain way, RPG players start ignoring it as "real" roleplaying.

These days, lost and lots and lots of people roleplay by post with no rules whatsoever. This is probably the majority of non-MMO online gaming right now. People play games where they fill the shoes of characters in Harry Potter or the X-Men and abide by GM moderation to unravel problems that simple conversation can't solve. They have lots of arguments, but they also have large, thriving communities.

The irksome thing for me as a game designer is that they don't need what I'm selling. They game by custom more than rule. It's like trying to sell crutches to competitive sprinters.

Past that, we have MMOs and ther computer games, which are strategically complex but put much of the tedium under the hood. Yes, the social sphere is different. The highs of dramatic interaction might be lacking. But one of the hidden principles of successful game design is in this ditty:

1) Most people run crappier games than they admit.
2) Their games tend to be crappy in the areas they stress the most.
3) This happens because of a combination of micromanagement and social dysfunction.

In truth, few people harvest the social potential of gaming -- they socialize in spite of the game. They use it as a pretext to socialize and this is what takes up a good chunk of the 4 hours/20 minutes equation.

It is possible -- easy even -- to design a game that teaches people how to maximize in-game social activity and integrate it with the rules and narrative. There are well-known principles that get used in dramatic arts all the time.

But that game would never sell, because in the end it would recommend a form of gaming that would either not be counted as gaming at all or would be absorbed by groups that aren't "official" games but are having plenty of fun nonetheless.

Incidentally, this is not just an indication that gamers suck or anything. The same dynamic is at work when people get together to play a game of casual soccer.


----------



## buzz

scadgrad said:
			
		

> WotC dominates the market because it cranks out more Rules Crunch than anyone else? It has has nothing what-so -ever to do w/ the fact that it's the D&D brand their crankin' out "rules heavy for?"
> 
> riiiiight.



There's quote from Mearls that I used to have in my .sig, which was basically, "If you think that D&D has remained popular simply becasue it was the first, or that it's a recognizeable brand, you have no business being a designer."



			
				scadgrad said:
			
		

> Look, WotC could have recreated 3.X as simply as The Window for instance, and because of the brand, it would have probably sold like hotcakes due to a combination of factors.



Well, they recreated ther hottest-selling campiagn setting and novel series, Dragonlance, as a rules-liteish RPG called SAGA, and we all know what a huge success that was. They even tied it with some of earth's most popular comic books with the Marvel SAGA game, and that went kaput, too.

(Granted, we also need to consider TSR's poor business practices.)

It's not all about branding.


----------



## Gentlegamer

fredramsey said:
			
		

> Sorry, but that just sounds sad, and a good reason to play computer games.



Ding! Ding! Ding!  We have a winner!  Can't sell computer games running on "rules lite" game systems, since a computer cannot act as Game Master; "rules heavy" allows the system to be ported into the computer realm, and produce a new product line, as well as RPGs that feel like playing a video game . . .


----------



## JamesDJarvis

Hmmmm... thriving rules-lite systems ?   Has there ever been one?

I don't think any game is rules-lite if it is over something like 64 pages or so.

I know C&C is simpler them 3e but i'd never call it rules-lite, True-20 certainly isn't rules lite they just aren't ruels heavy.


----------



## delericho

The comment that I found most telling on this thread was  "that D&D seemed like 20 minutes of fun packed into four hours". (Taken from a post by SweeneyTodd - I don't know exactly where he was quoting from.)

The following statement is one that I do not make lightly, and indeed is one I never thought I'd say: If you are playing D&D like that, you are playing it _wrong_.

A good DM with a group of players who are able to abide by his rulings will fit much more than 20 minutes of the "fun" activities into 4 hours. Likewise, a good GM and a good group of players will do the same, (almost) regardless of the system they are using.

So, which is better, rules-lite or rules-heavy? Well, if you want to make money, the answer would seem to be rules-heavy. (But then, if you _really_ want to make money, the answer is to be either D&D or Vampire. I doubt any other system is making huge amounts of money.)

If your goal isn't to make money, if for instance you are interested in playing the games, the best system is the one that _you_ have most fun with. If you like D&D, great. If you prefer C&C, that's great too. Attempting to find one true game system that will appeal to everyone is pointless.

Personally, I like D&D, but with reservations. I really like the fact that the game has provided me with a huge array of tools for building exciting adventures. I like the fact that I can spend my time dreaming up evil plots, and be sure that someone has done the hard work of describing all this in game terms, and I like the fact that the game provides reasonably good tools for ensuring that the challenges I develop are neither too hard nor too easy for my PCs (the CR system). This latter element was something I found very difficult in Storyteller, for instance.

What I _hate_ about D&D, though, is that there's so much work involved in taking my wonderfully fiendish ideas and turning them into a concrete set of statistics. Especially when it is so obviously the case that that job could be best done with a PC application, but there does not currently exist an application that has all the features I would require (for instance, the ability to select a few elements of a monster build, and then click a "finish it for me" button) _and_ is kept right up to date with the most recent releases. (And yes, I know that such an application is unrealistic to expect, but without it, I'm left with the work to do myself.)


----------



## fredramsey

JamesDJarvis said:
			
		

> I don't think any game is rules-lite if it is over something like 64 pages or so.




Page count?

Let's try to agree on one thing: "Rules Lite" is as subjective a term as "Rules Heavy", or "Obscene". We know it when we see it.

Savage Worlds, for example, is definitely over 64 pages, but it covers everything from vehicle rules, chase rules mass combat rules (those last 2 taking only 2 pages each - that's lite), powers, etc., etc. Rules Lite? I think so, but you may not.

But page count? Sorry, no.


----------



## scadgrad

buzz said:
			
		

> .. "If you think that D&D has remained popular simply becasue it was the first, or that it's a recognizeable brand, you have no business being a designer."




"Be there the firstest with the mostest baby."

One of the primary reasons that D&D and Warhammer Fantasy continue to dominate their respective markets is because of the brand and the world-wide community of players who cling to the game. This is particularly telling in GW's case since their rules are just laughably bad at times.




			
				buzz said:
			
		

> .. Well, they recreated ther hottest-selling campiagn setting and novel series, Dragonlance, as a rules-liteish RPG called SAGA, and we all know what a huge success that was. They even tied it with some of earth's most popular comic books with the Marvel SAGA game, and that went kaput, too.
> 
> (Granted, we also need to consider TSR's poor business practices.)
> 
> It's not all about branding.




But one could make the argument that SAGA went down in flames *because* it wasn't a part of the D&D brand. It was viewed as NOT D&D. There is certainly more to sales figures than the brand, but I maintain that the brand is far more importent than how many crunchy bitz the designer throws under the hood.


----------



## Desdichado

fredramsey said:
			
		

> I sit corrected. But still



Still what?  That was your whole point that just evaporated in the wind, wasn't it?


----------



## BiggusGeekus

scadgrad said:
			
		

> But one could make the argument that SAGA went down in flames *because* it wasn't a part of the D&D brand. It was viewed as NOT D&D. There is certainly more to sales figures than the brand, but I maintain that the brand is far more importent than how many crunchy bitz the designer throws under the hood.




Addtionally, that game had problems because W-H blew up their world again. 

Never buy real estate in Krynn.


----------



## Garnfellow

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> But I also consider just about every game mentioned in this thread rules heavy. Risus (6 pages) and similar games are rules lite. Any game where rules (and non-setting material) take up 100+ pages is not rules light.




You know, I'm really not sure I've ever played a true rules-lite game. I've looked at Risus, but never actually ran it. The closest I got was probably either SAGA or The Fantasy Trip, both of which were pretty solid games. Would they be considered rules-lite?


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Ding! Ding! Ding!  We have a winner!  Can't sell computer games running on "rules lite" game systems, since a computer cannot act as Game Master; "rules heavy" allows the system to be ported into the computer realm, and produce a new product line, as well as RPGs that feel like playing a video game . . .




Have you ever played a video game?  Final Fantasy 4 is a rules-lite system; Final Fantasy Tactics is comparatively rules-heavy but rules-lite by pen and paper standards; Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil is considerably heavier, being based on 3.x D&D.

If you were to translate FF4's mechanics into a pen and paper RPG, it would be a relatively rules-lite system with a single unified combat mechanic and a small number of spells or powers per character (at 40th level about equivalent to a 1st-level d20 character).  Less complex than BD&D, and with the same amount of out-of-combat conflict resolution inherent to the system (that is, none).  Unlike any version of D&D, but much like, say, Tri-Stat, positioning and movement would be abstract, limited, at most, to declaring one line of PCs/NPCs as being ahead of the other for protective purposes.  Like C&C or BD&D or AD&D, every character is representative of an archetype, and he cannot change it or customize it within the framework of the rules.  In the electronic game, non-combat interaction is either ignored (most skill checks) or run by 'GM fiat' (diplomacy, traps) - just like in a rules-lite system.

An FFT character has the same amount of out-of-combat conflict resolution built into the system as an FF4 character, but considerably more complexity in combat.  By level 40, he likely has levels in about a half-dozen classes and he can set a custom suite of abilities for combat, some of which would likely have out-of-combat implications as well in a pen-and-paper game.  Movement is precise and Z-axis is important.  However, an FFT character never has as many options during the course of play as even a BD&D character, and less in character creation than a D&D 3.x character.

A RttToEE character is a 3.x character, basically.

Rules-lite systems not only translate perfectly well to video games, they are the clear standard.  Non-D&D computer games also usually run on 'rules-lite(er)' systems.


----------



## fredramsey

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Still what?  That was your whole point that just evaporated in the wind, wasn't it?




No, only if you use the *talk-radio* model of discussion does one detail invalidate the entire point.

He is still a big name in the industry. He publishes d20 material. Point still stands. Why do those at the top find it necessary to cast those below in a bad light, especially in such a small market?


----------



## Desdichado

scadgrad said:
			
		

> One of the primary reasons that D&D and Warhammer Fantasy continue to dominate their respective markets is because of the brand and the world-wide community of players who cling to the game. This is particularly telling in GW's case since their rules are just laughably bad at times.



I think that's ridiculous.  White Wolf gave TSR a good scare for a while ten years or so ago, and D&D has firmly regained whatever ground it had lost to them, and then some since.  Warmachine and the various clicky games are serious competitors to GW these days.

There's something about being first, but it's not everything you think it is either.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Moogle: I'm talking about video games based on a paper RPG source.


----------



## mearls

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Rules heavy games are for gamers. Rules light games are for gamers who are friends.




There's one key issue here that I think you're overlooking.

Only one person has to learn a rules heavy game. You can play D&D without owning a PH, or learning any of the rules, as long as someone else at the table can tell you what's going on.

The same thing is true with a rules light game.

The question becomes, which game is worth the time it takes to study and learn? They both take some amount of time. The more complex game probably takes more time, but it's also more rewarding in that you have more tools in your kit to deal with the game.

IMO, light v. heavy is only an issue in competitive games where every player has to learn the rules to enjoy the game. That isn't the case in RPGs.

(And it's also the case that the posts that I as soon as I make a post that generates lots of discussion, I have a rush of work that keeps me away from various boards!)


----------



## Desdichado

fredramsey said:
			
		

> No, only if you use the *talk-radio* model of discussion does one detail invalidate the entire point.
> 
> He is still a big name in the industry. He publishes d20 material. Point still stands. Why do those at the top find it necessary to cast those below in a bad light, especially in such a small market?



No, he's not a big name in the industry really.  No, he doesn't publish d20 material to my knowledge.  He's not a game designer.  He's never published anything like game material.  And it's not exactly "one detail" it's the main point of your position.


----------



## eyebeams

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I think that's ridiculous.  White Wolf gave TSR a good scare for a while ten years or so ago, and D&D has firmly regained whatever ground it had lost to them, and then some since.




It's more accurate to say that TSR gave TSR a good scare. Just as I cannot claim to be an expert marksman because somebody shot themselves in the face, White Wolf cannot claim that it nicked anything from TSR.



> Warmachine and the various clicky games are serious competitors to GW these days.




Not really. I doubt Warmachine can touch Warhammer and the clicky games are totally different. WotC itself already tried to succeed with a true head to head competitor for Warhammer and got spanked.


----------



## fredramsey

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> No, he's not a big name in the industry really.  No, he doesn't publish d20 material to my knowledge.  He's not a game designer.  He's never published anything like game material.  And it's not exactly "one detail" it's the main point of your position.




So why did these people have him do their forward?

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?cPath=334_337&products_id=3289&

Sorry, Rush, point still stands.

But, unlike the talk radio model, you are free to believe what you want.


----------



## Psion

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Moogle: I'm talking about video games based on a paper RPG source.




So, your complaint is about tabletop RPGs are like video games _specifically_ modeled after tabletop RPGs? Seems like a bit of chicken-and-egg here to me.


----------



## buzz

scadgrad said:
			
		

> Buffy (w/ its 256 pages of rules by-the-by, hole in your logic perhaps?)



A gap maybe, but not a hole. 

Thing is _Buffy_ isn't 256pp of rules. It's rules, setting info, season 1-5 synopsis, writeups of the major characters, sample archetypes, GM advice, complete sample adventure, guide to Buffyspeak, creatures and villains, conversion notes for _Witchcraft_, reference sheets, some fiction, and lots of art. C&C is all rules (or far more rules in comparison). _Buffy_ may not be RISUS, but it sure sits a lot closer to it than C&C.



			
				scadgrad said:
			
		

> It would seem to me that considering only games such as Buffy (w/ its 256 pages of rules by-the-by, hole in your logic perhaps?) and The Window as being the hallmarks of "rules-liteism" as perhaps a bit too narrow, though again, I don't go in for the rules-medium definition. YMMV.



Well, then what do we call a game that's not RISUS yet not HERO? Using "rules-medium" seems a lot more apt that making "lite" so broad as to encompass all RPGs that are any degree less complex than D&D.

Or, we could always use the other common definition of the terms:

"Lite" = RPGs I like.
"Heavy" = RPGs I don't.


----------



## BryonD

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> Something I don't get, which may just be my own perspective getting in the way, is why rules-light games are perceived as "Cops & Robbers".A badly designed rules light game can, but nobody's defending badly designed games.
> 
> HeroQuest, Sorcerer, The Pool, Primetime Adventures, Dogs in the Vineyard, FATE -- one thing these games have in common is that any conflict at all that comes up can be resolved using the basic mechanic. These conflicts can be interesting and challenging. There's little cause for confusion or debate, except perhaps about difficulty levels (which always have to be decided).




D&D uses a basic mechanic.  I don't think anyone is argueing that this makes it rules lite.

If there is a consistent rule for something, say jumping a ditch, then on that issue the game is effectively the same as a rules heavy game.  If there isn't, then it is no different than cops and robbers on that issue.  

But it does not come down to one issue at a time.  The real issue is how often must you make up rules on the fly vs how much do you have to keep up with.  Any time you have to make up rules on the fly, then it goes back to whim, which is little more than cops and robbers.  

Just having a single mechanic doesn't solve the problem, it just obscures it.  If you use a core mechanic to determine how much a character can lift in the absence of a lifting mechanic, then GM whim is still the real controlling factor.  Must I roll to lift 10 pounds?  Can I roll to try to lift 1,000?  Neither of these are ever going to be a problem.  But some vague point in between is going to be whim.  And that vague area is going to be the area that you actually care about.  Automitcs are not interesting, the edge of chance, one way or the other is where the exciting action occurs.  Exactly the point where rules lite seems to break down the worst.

In D&D I know if a character can lift 250 lbs or not.  If you throw a 50/50 chance at my rules light character, it is just a hand wave to hide the same result as arguing "yes I can" / "no you can't".  And, of course if you rule differently the next time then you don't have a consistent game and if you rule the same then you are back to have a rules heavy game where the rules just are not written down.  Either way its some degree of fancy cops and robbers.


----------



## scadgrad

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I think that's ridiculous.  White Wolf gave TSR a good scare for a while ten years or so ago, and D&D has firmly regained whatever ground it had lost to them, and then some since.  Warmachine and the various clicky games are serious competitors to GW these days.
> 
> There's something about being first, but it's not everything you think it is either.




No, you're right. You still have to *maintain the brand* and respond to competitors as WotC wisely did by revamping D&D. Hell, Coke changes its packaging on a farily consistant basis too.

But the fact that you can go to just about anywhere in the world and find players who play either Warhammer of some stripe or D&D is a very powerful thing and is part and parcel of the brand itself. You may think it's ridiculous, but the brand is a very powerful thing and being the first to devlop and establish a market is a crucial element of being succesful in a long-term enterprise. It may be silly, and certainly there have been challengers, but the fact remains that in both of those examples those games sit on top of the field that they virtually invented: Role Playing games and Fantasy Miniature Wargames.

Whether or not they load up their games with more and more complexity doesn't really seem to have nearly as much to do with it.


----------



## mcrow

BiggusGeekus said:
			
		

> It's the only ojbective measure of a game's sucess. There are many, many subjective measures, but sales is the only real objective one.





I'm not debating sucess of a game but just the facts of how the mechanics and char gen work in response to Ryan saying that "light" systems are not faster and do not have a lower learning curve than d20. 


Any old  average system (@ that time anyway)that had the D&D logo on it would have done just as well given the same resources.


----------



## fredramsey

mcrow said:
			
		

> I'm not debating sucess of a game but just the facts of how the mechanics and char gen work in response to Ryan saying that "light" systems are not faster and do not have a lower learning curve than d20.




And on that note... We're back on topic!


----------



## scadgrad

buzz said:
			
		

> Or, we could always use the other common definition of the terms:
> 
> "Lite" = RPGs I like.
> "Heavy" = RPGs I don't.




Yeah, let's use that one.


----------



## buzz

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> There's something about being first, but it's not everything you think it is either.



Bingo. If it was all about being first, _Superhero 2044_ would be the supers RPG of chocie, and all the pulp fans would be playing FGU's _Daredevils_.

Ditto brands. You can't build a brand on a crappy product. The _Champions_ brand (arguably the best-known SHRPG brand, at least until maybe M&M) certainly didn't help Cybergames' Fuzion-based _Champions: The New Millenium_ line become any less of a disaster. And let us not venture into talk of AD&D2e. Even WFRP was out of print for a while.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Psion said:
			
		

> So, your complaint is about tabletop RPGs are like video games _specifically_ modeled after tabletop RPGs? Seems like a bit of chicken-and-egg here to me.




Here's what I am saying:  A RPG game system that actually makes use of a Game Master to arbitrate the game (including ad hoc decision making on action resolutions) doesn't translate well into a computer game _that is marketed under the RPG's brand name_.  Such a hypothetical video game cannot really be true to its source since the "rules" for so many types of actions are not usually codified.  That is, this kind of RPG relies on a real live Game Master performing tasks that are impossible to model in a video game.

"Rules heavy" system that have an outlined rule for everything can be translated to computer games much easier (including lots of number crunching and calculations).  

Video games are highly profitable.  In order to tap into this profit, a RPG publisher creates a system that is more adaptable to that format as a source.  The result is a paper RPG that itself feels like playing a video game, in may ways.  For example, I don't think it is not a mere coincidence that Everquest found the d20 system so suitable when translating the video game to paper RPG.


----------



## Gentlegamer

buzz said:
			
		

> Bingo. If it was all about being first, _Superhero 2044_ would be the supers RPG of chocie, and all the pulp fans would be playing FGU's _Daredevils_.
> 
> Ditto brands. You can't build a brand on a crappy product. The _Champions_ brand (arguably the best-known SHRPG brand, at least until maybe M&M) certainly didn't help Cybergames' Fuzion-based _Champions: The New Millenium_ line become any less of a disaster. And let us not venture into talk of AD&D2e. Even WFRP was out of print for a while.



All of these are RPGs.  What was the FIRST RPG?


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Moogle: I'm talking about video games based on a paper RPG source.




Final Fantasy outsells D&D brand electronic games, although both are hugely successful.  Presumably, to maximize the sales of D&D brand electronic games, those dreadful money-grubbers at Wizards would have made paper D&D more like Final Fantasy.

That is, light, fast combat with a strong emphasis on basic attacks, little attention to location and movement and a simple magic system, with no out-of-combat resolution mechanic.

Something akin to a combination of the rules-litest aspects BD&D and Tri-Stat.

Something absolutely not akin to D&D 3.x.

Of course, since Wizards makes exactly $0.00 off the sale of D&D brand electronic games (as Hasbro no longer has the rights to said brand), they have no incentive to do either. :\ 

I suggest falling back on the WotC made 3.x rules-heavy to sell miniatures.

Because we all know that the Warhammer and War Machine rules are far more complex than, say, AD&D.


----------



## BiggusGeekus

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> All of these are RPGs.  What was the FIRST RPG?





Tunnels and Trolls

http://www.flyingbuffalo.com/tandt.htm


----------



## Quasqueton

Start with a "rules lite" game system. The system covers 80% of a player's game experience. 

Group 1: 
When the players want to try stuff not covered by the system, the DM has to come up with rules for it. Once a rule is formed, the DM adds it to the list of house rules for future reference, should the situation come up again.

After 100 game sessions, that 20% has come up quite often. The DM's house rules list has grown quite a bit. The DM's game is now rules lite (80%) with house rules (20%). He looks at the "rules heavy" game system and sees that all of his house rules are included in the core rules (100%). So the group "upgrades" to the new game system.

The group is happy with the new rules because nothing has gotten harder, and the DM's job has gotten easier.


Group 2:
Start with a "rules lite" game system. The system covers 80% of a player's game experience. 

Either the players never think of or attempt something not covered by the system (the 20%), or they consciously or subconsciously limit themselves to stuff covered in the system (the 80%). [If grappling is not mentioned in the rules, do the players not think to try it, or do they ignore/avoid that option?] So the "missing" 20% is never actually missed.

Someone sees the "rules heavy" game system, sees all these new options (the 20%) available, and the group upgrades to the new game system. Now everyone wants to try all these new options. The group no longer just attacks, attacks, attacks. Now everyone is bullrushing, grappling, and disarming. The 20% suddenly becomes so much more important. The 20% seems more like 50% now.

Everyone starts pining for the old days when things were simpler. "Rules lite worked fine for us."


So, for Group 1, "rules heavy" was a good change. For Group 2, "rules heavy" was a bad change. One group saw the old cup as half empty, and now sees the cup as full at last. The other group saw the cup as having plenty, and now sees the cup twice as full as it needs to be - and they feel that they *must* drink the whole thing.

Quasqueton


----------



## diaglo

mearls said:
			
		

> Here's a simple test:
> 
> Name a "rules lite" RPG that remained in print and actively supported by a publisher for more than 5 years.



OD&D 1974 - 1979+ a little over 5 years.


----------



## Gentlegamer

In my experience, "rules heavy" actually limits your options by setting the parameters of how you as a player (and GM) conceptualize your in game actions.


----------



## ThirdWizard

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> In my experience, "rules heavy" actually limits your options by setting the parameters of how you as a player (and GM) conceptualize your in game actions.




Having more options will limit what you are capable of more than having less options? I disagree.

EDIT: It's completely baed on the players not the rule system. A group of players who likes to do weird and crazy stunts will do so in a lite system or a heavy system. A group of players who doesn't like to do weird and crazy stunts won't do so in either system. A bad GM will flounder when the PCs break outside the box in either case, and a good GM will be able to run with it under either system.


----------



## fredramsey

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> In my experience, "rules heavy" actually limits your options by setting the parameters of how you as a player (and GM) conceptualize your in game actions.




Exactly.

That's what I experienced many times moving to Savage Worlds, and even between other systems. If someone is very experienced in using a system, it is hard for them to imagine doing something not covered by the rules.

But I think the trust factor has a lot to do with why people don't like rules lite systems. They don't trust the GM to provide them with an entertaining story. They are more worried about the fact that they could stuff 12 monkeys in a barrel last week, and this week, the GM would only let them stuff 11. "Oh the humanity! Oh, how cruel! I can't suspend my disbelief! Help me, oh heavy rules!"


----------



## der_kluge

I'm certainly no expert in this field of study, but I've got opinions on here like everyone else.

It seems to me, that if you compare "rules-light" versus "rules-heavy" you could compare computer games - Baldur's Gate, versus say, Ultima 6 (the greatest RPG game every made, IMHO).

Baldur's Gate: You had complex spells, and complex dispel magic spells (a variety to choose from), and to successfully attack a spell caster, you often had to use a variety of strategic measures to bring down his magical defenses.

Ultima 6: To kill something, you had to whack it with a lot of pointy sticks, sometimes a lot.


Baldur's Gate: Dragons were fierce combatants, made all the more powerful with effects like Stoneskin, so you had to monitor the event log to see if the dragon had cast that, and if he had, you had to counter with a dispel magic in order to affect him.

Ultima 6: To kill a dragon, you had to have a lot of hit points, and whack it with a lot of pointy sticks.


Baldur's Gate: If you tried to convince the town guard to do something, often the game would secretly roll (or in NWN's case, would openly show you the roll, be it bluff, or whatever) that you were attempting some form of deception. Success was based on the dice roll.

Ultima 6: You either chose the right thing to say, or you didn't.


I think both were great games, but they play differently. I don't think I agree with the argument that you need a real heavy rules system to create an effective computer simulation of an RPG. Neither system would want randomness in place.  Consider the grabbing the rope and swinging across with the Princess. If this were done in a computer game, and it came down to a single dice roll, people would save the game before hand, attempt it, and failing it would just reload and try it again. It would be kind of pointless, and not very fun.


At their core, they are essentially the same game. But BG takes a lot more rules understanding. I pity the poor fool who doesn't know the 3rd edition rules try to make it all the way to the end of BGII because you have to have a lot of game knowledge on how to defeat certain monsters. The Mind Flayer area would be particularly frustrating.


It occurred to me that playing C&C (with Scadgrad) that the concept of an ability score check is a long-lost concept in 3rd edition. I was hesitant to lose skills at first, but I no longer miss them.  Everthing is resolved with a quick and easy ability score check, and it negates the need for a skill. If you really think about it, having a lot of rules can lead to weird conclusions. For example, swimming can either be strength (trying to swim across a fast river) or constitution (treading water in the middle of the ocean for hours). Applying a hard rule to a concept can actually make the game *less* realistic, which kind of loses the intent, I think.


The other point I'd like to make is the concept of character creation. I don't *want* to be able to create a character in 5 minutes. I want a backstory, I want a personality, I want all those things, that should be standard for any character (unless I'm slopping one together at a convention). To this end, rules-heavy can give me more flexibility and more definition, but even it is insufficient for what I want. With a rules-light system, I might be mechanically nothing more than a few ability scores, a class, and some hit points. With rules-heavy, I might be all those things, and some skills and feats as well. But neither tells the complete story of *who* I am. 
  Aside from trying to create people within the middle of a game (never a good idea, in any situation), I don't *care* if character creation takes 2 hours. I like character creation. It's the rules that come up during game play that I don't want to eat up all my time.  Game time is precious to me, and if I can spend that time actually role-playing and propelling the story foreward, rather than debating some rules minutia, then I'm happier.


----------



## Campbell

fredramsey said:
			
		

> So why did these people have him do their forward?




The work in question is not a gaming product, but rather it is  reference guide to the OGL  and d20 STL, the formation of which Dancey played a pretty integral role in. Dancey has a good deal of working knowledge of these licenses, despite his perception of the rpg market being suspect. 

Additionally, it is a mistake to view the d20 industry as a monolithic entity. The d20/OGL  market if you can call it that is composed mostly of small independent publishers who have less communication amongst each other than Microsoft has with the open source community.


----------



## Nikosandros

mearls said:
			
		

> Only one person has to learn a rules heavy game. You can play D&D without owning a PH, or learning any of the rules, as long as someone else at the table can tell you what's going on.




Yes, but in a rules heavy game that "telling" takes a lot more time... at least such was my experience with AD&D (which is not rules light per se, but it's lighter then 3E) vs 3rd edition, with the kind of players that don't own or read the manuals. 



			
				mearls said:
			
		

> The more complex game probably takes more time, but it's also more rewarding in that you have more tools in your kit to deal with the game.




Personally, I think that you don't have more tools, you just have different tools for different jobs...

I do agree however, that games with more rules, make the system more "GM proof", by reducing the amount of "arbitrary" adjudication. Wheter this is a good or bad thing is clearly a matter of personal taste.



			
				mearls said:
			
		

> (And it's also the case that the posts that I as soon as I make a post that generates lots of discussion, I have a rush of work that keeps me away from various boards!)




And a good thing too, considering that we seem to disagree on these posts, but I absolutely adore your writing!


----------



## fredramsey

True, but if everyone thought that nothing this guy said was important, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place...   



			
				Campbell said:
			
		

> The work in question is not a gaming product, but rather it is  reference guide to the OGL  and d20 STL, the formation of which Dancey played a pretty integral role in. Dancey has a good deal of working knowledge of these licenses, despite his perception of the rpg market being suspect.
> 
> Additionally, it is a mistake to view the d20 industry as a monolithic entity. The d20/OGL  market if you can call it that is composed mostly of small independent publishers who have less communication amongst each other than Microsoft has with the open source community.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

On the "20 minutes of game in 4 hours" quote: That was Ryan Dancey. (The quote that started the thread was his response to someone who responded to that, saying "Wouldn't simpler rules help?"



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> Just having a single mechanic doesn't solve the problem, it just obscures it.  If you use a core mechanic to determine how much a character can lift in the absence of a lifting mechanic, then GM whim is still the real controlling factor.  Must I roll to lift 10 pounds?  Can I roll to try to lift 1,000?  Neither of these are ever going to be a problem.  But some vague point in between is going to be whim.  And that vague area is going to be the area that you actually care about.  Automitcs are not interesting, the edge of chance, one way or the other is where the exciting action occurs.  Exactly the point where rules lite seems to break down the worst.
> 
> In D&D I know if a character can lift 250 lbs or not.  If you throw a 50/50 chance at my rules light character, it is just a hand wave to hide the same result as arguing "yes I can" / "no you can't".  And, of course if you rule differently the next time then you don't have a consistent game and if you rule the same then you are back to have a rules heavy game where the rules just are not written down.  Either way its some degree of fancy cops and robbers.




BryonD: I would agree with you that if you are playing a game where it matters how much you can lift, then you should use a ruleset that handles that. If you want everything quantified, then use a rules-heavy system that quantifies everything.

I'm saying this kind of stuff doesn't come up in my games. Seriously. Nobody sits around wondering if they can lift 250 pounds or not. (I recognize this is an extreme example, but I'm going for a general principle. I'm not hung up on the specifics of deadlifting.)

I've had characters have to struggle to move some heavy debris to save a friend. They had a stat that measured their physical ability, and they rolled against a difficulty that represented that it was a heavy weight and they had to do it quickly. 

If I'd played that scene in D&D, I would have looked at the heaviest character's Strength stat, seen how much they could barely lift, and made the weight of the debris that much. 

Either way, the difficulty was the same. _It didn't make any difference._

But wait, you might say. What if he was strong enough that it wasn't a question, he could definately do it. Then in any system, I wouldn't have had him roll. If it isn't dramatic or interesting to do something, why are we using the rules for it?

I think I see the biggest sticking point: _None of this stuff is real._  Seriously, though, it's not. The GM invented the debris. We're all imaging that it's there, pinning this guy's poor friend. The conflict isn't about mass vs. muscle capacity -- it's about this guy trying to save his friend. 

And the thing is, the player was fine with it. He did something heroic, saved his friend, and everybody went "Man, he's strong." Nobody went back with a scale to measure the debris and write down how much weight he lifted.

What I'm trying to say is that it's entirely possible to play a challenging, believable game where the mechanics handle "can you achieve your goal", without knowing concrete specifics about everything. 

If you want to know concrete specifics about everything, I got nothin'. You'd probably hate my GMing. I strive hard to present a believable, interesting world, and it works for my players and their preferences, but it wouldn't work for everybody.

If the concern is that it's not fair, well, I challenge the PCs with a variety of conflicts. Some are easy enough that we don't roll. Some are difficult and risky, and the system resolves those with a relevant element of chance. Some are impossible, and must be overcome in a different way. It'd be exactly the same if I played by-the-book rules-heavy, except that I'd add an additional step after deciding the difficulty where I reverse-engineered from the numbers to determine the specifics.

Because if it's not challenging and interesting, why are you using the rules to determine the outcome? And if the rules you use make those conflicts challenging and interesting, why use more?

That's just my angle.


----------



## Aristotle

The problem here, for me, is that nobody seems to be able to agree which games are actually "rules lite". It seems only the most extreme cases, of which I can't currently think of any, are able to be identified and globally recognized as such. In that regard it is a lot like "Low Magic". Some people love the idea. Some people hate the idea. Most are indifferent. And nobody seems to be able to agree on what the idea was in the first place.


----------



## Desdichado

buzz said:
			
		

> Even WFRP was out of print for a while.



But Warhammer Fantasy Battle never has been, to the best of my knowledge.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Wow, Gentlegamer, that's quite a conspiracy theory you have. 



> "Rules heavy" system that have an outlined rule for everything can be translated to computer games much easier (including lots of number crunching and calculations).




This is actually wrong. Videogames are *overwhelmingly* eager to embrace easy to understand, light rules. They only have so many buttons on a controller, after all.

The more rules for more situations helps at the table, not on the screen. Adding rules for grappling, weapon sizes, treasure, tripping, etc. is not what a videogame looks for. You have one button to press to swing your sword and hit the guy x number of times to kill him, then you move on and do it again to the next guy. 

Think of some of the most complex CRPG's on the market: MMOs like World of Warcraft or Guild Wars, single-player opuses like the Final Fantasy series...every resolution system is astonishingly simple. And I bet to translate D&D into an MMO, Atari has to simplify things, too...because the power and technology doesn't exist to have a character that can grapple, for instance. Or one that can bull rush. Or one that can run a farm. Or one that can knock down any wall given enough time and sword blows. Or one that allows you to cut down trees. Or make jumps. Or climb "unscalable" walls.

Videogames exist in a limited, predefined world where the rules need only be as complex as the things that the heroes do. There's no treasure generation rules. There's no CR/EL rules. There's no rules for object hardness and hit points, no rules for snatching items from someone's hand, no rules for grabbing a rope in the rain, no rules for laying seige to a castle, no rules for winning over a crowd or using diplomacy. These are all rules that D&D has that would largely be ignored in a CRPG based on D&D, and have been. So in a CRPG based on D&D, you actually have to *simplify* the rules. It hardly sounds like they benefit from complexity. 

Speaking as the guy taking Final Fantasy and turning it into a Pen-and-Paper RPG, I've had pretty wide experience with the difference between what makes a fun computer game and what makes a fun pen-and-paper game. And a pen-and-paper game benefits from a complex rule system, where whatever option a character can do is already accounted for in the balance of the rules, making sure that no option becomes overwhelmingly powerful. 

Systems with a lot of rules (D&D) have to be *reduced* in complexity to accomodate the limitations of computer hardware. Complex rules are a PROBLEM for CRPG's. Which means that the complexity of the rules, far from being there to inspire easier CRPG game play, is actually there _in spite of_ the fact that they make it HARDER to translate into the digital realm, and the complex rules are usually *discarded* in the translation to computer games. While I might need to know in a PnPRPG how to wrestle a hog to the ground, in a CRPG, all I need to know is what button to push to kill things.

In fact, the thing that probably makes D&D compatible with computer games the most is the grid system, which is a *simplification* of rules, forgoing complexity and embracing an artificial simplicity.

D&D is absolutely NOT designed to be a CRPG first and a PnPRPG second. If it was, it would be a simpler system, more abstract...much like FFd20 is, in trying to mirror a CRPG.


----------



## Desdichado

fredramsey said:
			
		

> So why did these people have him do their forward?
> 
> http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?cPath=334_337&products_id=3289&
> 
> Sorry, Rush, point still stands.
> 
> But, unlike the talk radio model, you are free to believe what you want.



I don't see what that proves at all.  But hey, you've got a nice pattern going of making dismissive and insulting brush-offs to cover-up the lack of compelling content in your arguments--we've been there before and probably will be again.  Don't let any facts get in your way of having fun calling me Rush Limbaugh.


----------



## fredramsey

Nicely put. This is the very spirit of a "rules lite" game, no matter how many pages it has, or what company puts it out.

I've been playing for over 25 years, and I've read and played in a lot of systems. Only within the last 2 or 3 months has my opinion of mechanics vs. fun really changed.

Savage Worlds got me to thinking about why we roll dice.

Burning Wheel got me to thinking about when to roll dice.

And that's what really matters, in the end.



			
				SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> I think I see the biggest sticking point: _None of this stuff is real._  Seriously, though, it's not. The GM invented the debris. We're all imaging that it's there, pinning this guy's poor friend. The conflict isn't about mass vs. muscle capacity -- it's about this guy trying to save his friend.
> 
> And the thing is, the player was fine with it. He did something heroic, saved his friend, and everybody went "Man, he's strong." Nobody went back with a scale to measure the debris and write down how much weight he lifted.
> 
> What I'm trying to say is that it's entirely possible to play a challenging, believable game where the mechanics handle "can you achieve your goal", without knowing concrete specifics about everything.


----------



## ThirdWizard

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> If I'd played that scene in D&D, I would have looked at the heaviest character's Strength stat, seen how much they could barely lift, and made the weight of the debris that much.
> 
> Either way, the difficulty was the same. _It didn't make any difference._




Big playstyle difference there. Most people I know would consider that quite "backwards" logic. First determine how heavy the boulders are, then determine if the PCs can move them quickly is how I have always seen it done. Thus it makes a huge difference. In one case, the PCs' ability to succed is based on thier own abilities. In the other DM's whim (if the DM didn't want them to be able to pass by the rubble, then it would conveniently be too heavy for the PCs to move).

Thus, big playstyle difference. One way is governed by PC ability, the other by DM whim. If this is how a rules-lite system is going to be, I personally would not like to play it.


----------



## fredramsey

I certainly won't!

And don't let the spirit of what I was saying get in the way of you lasering in on only pieces of it to drown out the point I was making about big companies picking on small ones!

[hugs and kisses]



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I don't see what that proves at all.  But hey, you've got a nice pattern going of making dismissive and insulting brush-offs to cover-up the lack of compelling content in your arguments--we've been there before and probably will be again.  Don't let any facts get in your way of having fun calling me Rush Limbaugh.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

der_kluge said:
			
		

> But BG takes a lot more rules understanding. I pity the poor fool who doesn't know the *3rd edition rules* try to make it all the way to the end of BGII because you have to have a lot of game knowledge on how to defeat certain monsters. The Mind Flayer area would be particularly frustrating.




BG is a 2nd Edition game.  

[/pendantic]


----------



## rogueattorney

der_kluge said:
			
		

> The other point I'd like to make is the concept of character creation. I don't *want* to be able to create a character in 5 minutes. I want a backstory, I want a personality, I want all those things, that should be standard for any character (unless I'm slopping one together at a convention). To this end, rules-heavy can give me more flexibility and more definition, but even it is insufficient for what I want. With a rules-light system, I might be mechanically nothing more than a few ability scores, a class, and some hit points. With rules-heavy, I might be all those things, and some skills and feats as well. But neither tells the complete story of *who* I am.
> Aside from trying to create people within the middle of a game (never a good idea, in any situation), I don't *care* if character creation takes 2 hours. I like character creation. It's the rules that come up during game play that I don't want to eat up all my time.  Game time is precious to me, and if I can spend that time actually role-playing and propelling the story foreward, rather than debating some rules minutia, then I'm happier.




Check out Everway.  You should be able to get a copy off of ebay for ~$10-$15.  Makes a very big deal about character creation and background.  In some ways that's half the game.  And yet it's a very rules lite system.  

You can still do involved character creation in rules lite games.  The difference is that after presenting your character concept to the game master, he says "duly noted," rather than trying to help you shoe-horn all the character's background into a set of skills, feats, and other abilities.  That's where the true pain of character creation lies with rules-heavy systems - the quantification.

R.A.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Big playstyle difference there. Most people I know would consider that quite "backwards" logic. First determine how heavy the boulders are, then determine if the PCs can move them quickly is how I have always seen it done. Thus it makes a huge difference. In one case, the PCs' ability to succed is based on thier own abilities. In the other DM's whim (if the DM didn't want them to be able to pass by the rubble, then it would conveniently be too heavy for the PCs to move).
> 
> Thus, big playstyle difference. One way is governed by PC ability, the other by DM whim. If this is how a rules-lite system is going to be, I personally would not like to play it.




You hit that nail soldidly on the head for me, ThirdWizard. You do that alot around here. 

Changing the challenge simply to hurry along the story is too close to interactive storytelling for me, and too far away from playing a game. The price of Park Place doesn't change just because you can't afford it this time around...

My players appreciate that, too. If I wanted to have an interactive fiction session, I don't need any rules at all. If I want to play a game, I definately need them...


----------



## SWBaxter

Psion said:
			
		

> Boy, this one made the rules lite advocates jump up and yelp, didn't it?  "It's not troooo...!"




Most of the response I'm seeing is more along the lines of puzzlement. I have no reason to suspect Dancey's lying, but his experience differs fairly dramatically from mine. For example, I'm having trouble figuring out how he gets only 20 minutes of rules interaction out of a four hour D&D session - I ran _Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil_, and if there were many sessions where we only spent 20 minutes using the rules, it would probably have taken four or five times as long to finish the thing.



> But I would have to agree I find the supposed benefits of rules light games greatly exagarated, and think that the role of consistency in running a smooth game is undervalued.




The latter does not follow from the former - rules light games almost always trade detail in favour of consistency. Example: a given bad guy can be overcome in any of a variety of ways - PCs could fight him, bargain with him, blackmail him, trick him, whatever. In D&D, the rules cover fighting him in exacting detail, other approaches are handled in a relatively simplistic (and probably incomplete, unless you want the encounter resolved by something like a single diplomacy skill check) fashion. In a lighter game like HeroQuest, whatever approach you take is going to be handled the same way mechanically, with some methods (like fighting) being less detailed than D&D and others more detailed.


----------



## Desdichado

fredramsey said:
			
		

> And don't let the spirit of what I was saying get in the way of you lasering in on only pieces of it to drown out the point I was making about big companies picking on small ones!



I got your point; I just don't think there's anything to it.  WotC doesn't feel threatened by smaller companies--Ryan Dancey himself, back in the early days of 3e, said that the market share of even the biggest of their competitors was too small for them to even consider it anything but negligible.

Besides, as has been pointed out many times, the comments were more about the marketability of Rules Lite games, and the conversation was fairly objective whether you believe it or not.

You're not actually making a point as near as I can tell, you seem to be getting defensive and lashing out.  When it's been pointed out to you that you were actually mistaken about one of the most crucial elements of your claim, you've rather stubbornly clung to it anyway.  I must be misunderstanding something, but I can't see what you're even trying to say anymore.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Big playstyle difference there. Most people I know would consider that quite "backwards" logic. First determine how heavy the boulders are, then determine if the PCs can move them quickly is how I have always seen it done. Thus it makes a huge difference. In one case, the PCs' ability to succed is based on thier own abilities. In the other DM's whim (if the DM didn't want them to be able to pass by the rubble, then it would conveniently be too heavy for the PCs to move).
> 
> Thus, big playstyle difference. One way is governed by PC ability, the other by DM whim. If this is how a rules-lite system is going to be, I personally would not like to play it.




But why are there boulders there in the first place?

Why are there kobolds in the dungeon that first level PCs go to? 

Complex rules _justify_ GM's whim. Seriously. They don't replace it. When people spend lots of time preparing stat blocks for enemies, do you really believe that their first thought is "What is Zyaxx the wizard really like?" The first thought is how they can provide a challenge.

There is a heck of a lot of GMing information out there (including many of the threads on this forum) about how to come up with objective rules information that justifies GM whim. Even "I want to make an adventure" falls into this.

If you're saying that you prefer this stuff to be better hidden, so that it's easier to immerse yourself in the world and the character, okay. If you're saying you want all the numbers crunched up front because then you can enjoy defeating a set, objective challenge, okay. (I do this, too, only in my GM prep I have difficulty, and not the weight.)

But do realize that those boulders are only there because the GM invented them.


----------



## Breakdaddy

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> On the other hand, what I see are two of the biggest names in gaming making an comment based on some observed phenomena (whether or not you agree with the rigor of their data collection methodology*), and those people who are the supporters of "smaller games" - the underdogs, if you will - are just aching to be insulted so that they can point to the big guys and say, with injured nerd-pride, "We're better than them; see?"
> 
> * - To put it succinctly, "Ryan Dancey's results are not typical of my experience with rules lighter systems, and therefore I don't trust any conclusions based on his data" is a valid criticism of his comments.
> 
> "Ryan Dancey's a putz!" is not valid.
> 
> In this thread, I see a whole crapload of the latter, and not very much of the former.





Wow, your smugness is amazing dude. I mean, really, I thought *I* was arrogant. Instead of grabbing the first 80 pounds worth of gaming material you use per session (because its "consistent", of course!) and beating them over the head with it, try to listen sometimes. And just so you dont categorically dismiss my commentary as sour grapes or the shrill cry of another rules-lite emmisary, I can tell you right now I am running a D20 Star Wars game right now and loving it. My point is, just because you don't get what they are trying to say or disagree with it doesn't give your affectation of superiority any validity as concerns the topic. I recently ran a C&C game and found it to be much faster than my 3.5e game. Doesnt mean I've sworn off 3.5e. But it DOES prove (to me, at least), that The almighty WOTC crew *MIGHT* be spinning just a WEE bit because um, THEY WROTE THE STUFF. Of COURSE they like it.


----------



## Jupp

mearls said:
			
		

> There's one key issue here that I think you're overlooking.
> 
> Only one person has to learn a rules heavy game. You can play D&D without owning a PH, or learning any of the rules, as long as someone else at the table can tell you what's going on.
> The same thing is true with a rules light game.



Just that its much easier for both sides (DM and players) if the rulebooks are not 300+ pages and still cover everything that needs to be known to have a good game.



> The question becomes, which game is worth the time it takes to study and learn? They both take some amount of time. The more complex game probably takes more time, but it's also more rewarding in that you have more tools in your kit to deal with the game.




I always thought the reward comes from having a good game, not from having lots of tools, books, whatever. I cannot speak for others but I certainly do not feel better just because I have to learn alot of rules and because I have alot of source material to draw my ideas from. What makes me happy as a player is when we had alot of fun at the game table with my fellow gamers. What makes me happy as a DM is when my group had a fun afternoon.



> IMO, light v. heavy is only an issue in competitive games where every player has to learn the rules to enjoy the game. That isn't the case in RPGs.




Oh man, I just cannot say something nice smart to that.....  :\


----------



## Desdichado

SWBaxter said:
			
		

> The latter does not follow from the former - rules light games almost always trade detail in favour of consistency.



I don't think that it has to, and I'm not sure that Psion phrased it in such a way to necessarily imply as much.  The undervaluation of consistency and the overvaluation of simplicity are often paired in the same individuals, but they are two discrete data points, and are not necessarily correlated.


----------



## ThirdWizard

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> But do realize that those boulders are only there because the GM invented them.




Of course. But, that's going into railroading. Most people on these boards hate railroading, and you are indirectly advocating it through your scenario. What the GM determines is the best solution, whether or not the PCs have spent resources (points in Strength) or not (points in something else) is irrelevant. The situation is taken out of the PCs hands and put into that of the GM, making their abilities and actions largely irrelevant.

This is perfectly valid, but not my playstyle.


----------



## WizarDru

From what I gathered, the point Dancey was making was simply this: (presumably pre-3E) marketing tests indicated taht when it comes to starting up a game, being a system that emphasized less-rules did not translate into a more rapid adoption of the system for gameplay purposes.  In other words, just because one was using Risus versus Rolemaster, their test groups did not suddenly experience a marked up-tick the proportion of gaming time, simply by merit of using a simpler ruleset.  I may be wrong, but that was the impression I was left with.

Now, it's a valid criticism to say that he didn't back that data up in any meaningful way, either with numbers or methodology.  It's certainly valid to say that there wasn't enough detail from that data to judge the veracity of that comment.  Dancey is also something of a lightning rod for people's ire, for various reasons, a factor which shouldn't be discounted.

I'm willing to bet that the test groups were either pure neophytes, seasoned gamers or both.  In both cases, I can see character creation taking a longer time in either system.  For the former group, just learning the ropes is a challenge; for the latter group, feeling out the system is another one.

To wit: my group of experienced gamers of some years ago (a bunch well-versed in GURPS lore) agreed to try a Castle Falkenstein game that I wanted to run.  I personally would label the original CF as a pretty darn rules-light system: and it drove us to distraction.  The lack of specificity made it hard to imagine characters within the system.  One character wanted to create a Hercule Poirot-esque character...but most of his unique factors were purely descriptive fluff.  The rules system doesn't allow for specific archetypes.  You can't be Monk or Spenser, you can only be Sherlock Holmes.  You can't be Constantine or Howl, you can only be Merlin.  And so on.

One thing that is often overlooked in lighter systems is that a lack of options also can be interepted as a lack of individuality.  My group switched to GURPS from AD&D back in the day because we got tired of every 3rd level fighter being like every other 3rd level fighter, except for his equipment and maybe his strength score being a point higher or lower.  Some gamers see this as a strength, and a way to make rules secondary to player's ideas....and some of us don't.

I think that Dancey's market research prior to 3E was probably flawed...but it was also the ONLY MARKET RESEARCH EVER DONE in the RPG field.  That counts for something, surely.


----------



## fredramsey

Noted and filed.  :\ 



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> You're not actually making a point as near as I can tell, you seem to be getting defensive and lashing out.  When it's been pointed out to you that you were actually mistaken about one of the most crucial elements of your claim, you've rather stubbornly clung to it anyway.  I must be misunderstanding something, but I can't see what you're even trying to say anymore.


----------



## fredramsey

WizarDru said:
			
		

> The lack of specificity made it hard to imagine characters within the system.  One character wanted to create a Hercule Poirot-esque character...but most of his unique factors were purely descriptive fluff.




And the rules lite fans would respond, "So what?"   

It's funny, but I had this same discussion when 1st Edition D&D came out, about the Paladin, Ranger, etc. I said at the time, is it really necessary to have rules about a specific kind of Fighter, when you could just play your Fighter as a noble knight instead of a mercenary?

Granted, the Paladin and the Ranger had spells (and why the Ranger had spells is still a head scratcher, but I digress). But the point still stands: Do you really need rules for every aspect of a character? There was nothing stopping you in Basic D&D from playing a noble knight or an outdoorsman ranger. It did require *imagination*...

If you do, fine, there are systems out there that codify damn near everything. But if you are more interested in faster play, and (arguably) greater fun, then there are systems out there that allow that as well.

And any GM worth his salt will find a way to incorporate your "vision" into his rules lite game. How? Because the game doesn't dictate every single aspect. Now if you're wanting to play a diety in a low-magic, gritty game, then that's going beyond what is reasonable. But if confronted with that request, I would say, "That's a cool concept. How about a son of a diety, so I can better fit you in the story?"

It all comes down to style, in the end.


----------



## Psion

SWBaxter said:
			
		

> The latter does not follow from the former




Hence the use of the conjunction "and" instead of "therefore." 

I merely pointed them out because they were points brought up in the livejournal that I agree with, even though I find some other aspects of Ryan's post to not quite match my experience.


----------



## SWBaxter

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I don't think that it has to, and I'm not sure that Psion phrased it in such a way to necessarily imply as much.




Well, they were two clauses of the same sentence. If he didn't actually mean them to have any particular relation to each other, I'm sure he'll let me know.

Edit - and now he has, fair enough.


----------



## Remathilis

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Big playstyle difference there. Most people I know would consider that quite "backwards" logic. First determine how heavy the boulders are, then determine if the PCs can move them quickly is how I have always seen it done. Thus it makes a huge difference. In one case, the PCs' ability to succed is based on thier own abilities. In the other DM's whim (if the DM didn't want them to be able to pass by the rubble, then it would conveniently be too heavy for the PCs to move).
> 
> Thus, big playstyle difference. One way is governed by PC ability, the other by DM whim. If this is how a rules-lite system is going to be, I personally would not like to play it.




ThirdWizard wins.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

FWIW, my experience has shown been that over the long haul, there is little or no difference between rules-light and rules-heavy in terms of in-game vs. out-of-game activity.  Rules-light might have a slight early advantage, but the inevitable house rules and arguments once the players stretch their wings eventually suck up whatever savings their might have been.

What it boils down to for me is that subtraction is easier than addition both for the DM and the players.  In other words, in the long run I am better off simplifying a rules-heavy game for newbies and gradually lettting them get up to speed on the full ruleset than I am if I engage in perpertual ad-hockery once they've hit the limits of what a rules-light game provides.

This is also a significant reduction in the learning curve when mutliple people DM, or when players migrate from group to group.  This is I think is the real advantage of d20.


----------



## ThirdWizard

Remathilis said:
			
		

> ThirdWizard wins.




What's my prize?


----------



## Pants

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> BG is a 2nd Edition game.
> 
> [/pendantic]



BG2 is a combination 2e/3e game. It has monks, barbarians, and sorcerers after all. 

Hm, I like D&D 3e. I like having options that help me build the character I want. Sure, I could just say that my fighter character spent years on the street learning to fight and stealing before becoming a squire to a noble knight, but I actually like having the rules back this up. Sure, a rules-lite game could achieve this, but usually its up to the DM to say 'Okay, you know how to pick pockets or such-n-such...'

Some people prefer rules-lite (I'll leave the definition of what that is to others...) and others like rules-heavy.  I'd much rather play a rules-heavy game, BUT if I ever met a GM who was willing to work with a rules-lite system to allow me to build the character that I wanted, I wouldn't be adverse to trying.  But there's no way in hell I'll go back to the 2e way of things, where 'all fighters are the same.' 

2e may not be rules-lite, but it was liter than 3e...


----------



## Ace

mearls said:
			
		

> Here's a simple test:
> 
> Name a "rules lite" RPG that remained in print and actively supported by a publisher for more than 5 years.
> 
> I think only Amber (a completely genius design, BTW) meets this criteria.
> 
> In the current marketplace, I can't think of a single rules light game that's thriving. What I think is interesting, and this ties in Ryan's point that people *want* rules lite gaming to succeed, is that I suspect a lot of people think a game is rules lite when it's not.
> 
> What's even more interesting is that if you look at the industry over the past 30+ years, only rules heavy games have found and sustained audiences. Amber is perhaps the only exception I can think of (and again, that's a genius design).




Games really are a short term thing anyway. Like any hobby it has fads and they come andgo --   WEG Star Wars one day -- RIFTS another. Few systems are evergreen and fewer still are played after 5 or so years. Unless your game is D&D odds are each year past the first 3 less groups play it -- yes there is probably at least one group playing Melanda and a few folks still play Dragon Quest or Powers and Perils but the "fad" has past -- heck even D&D is subject to the fad. OD&D is still played exclusivly by some as is 2e and 1e and the like 

Now as for your 5 year mark, the Buffy RPG and Cinematic Unisystem is quite well supported. 
It is more than 3 years old thus far and has 5 supplements (1 is a screen and 1 is a journal) and with 2 more  in playtest/approvals -- There is a spin off game (Angel) with 1 supplement (a GM Screen) with supplements for that in approvals/playtest as well . 
Arguably Army of Darkness  (which uses the same system) could be counted as support since crossovers are discussed in the rules. 

There is also Ghosts of Albion in playest which has good crossover posisblity. Oh yeah there are 2 issues so far of a supplement/magazine with more support and an adventure in Game Trader --  

Thats a lot of support. How sustained this will be is up in the air but I suspect once Eden produces more non liscensed content (ala Beyond Human) it will have a decent life cycle. I am quite sure that it will make the five year limit easy  

 Risus which is ultra rules lite is sizable web community as well -- Risus is too small to print since the rules can fit on a 5" by 8" card 

None of these games meet or exceed D&D in sales but in since gaming started only White Wolf's storyteller has come close of ANY game. Even rules heavy stuff (GURPS and Rolemaster) don't come close 

D&D/D20 is the brand for most gamers. The bulk of the rest are into WOD, often the LARP version  

The thing is gaming is not one single consolidated hobby ala Hackmaster in the KODT verse. It is several sub hobbies who often play together -- 

Some games group (mine) dislike tactical wargaming and are perfectly happy with GM arbitration as long as it enhances fun.  Rules lite is fine for them

Others want Narrative systems ala Risus, Wushu or Story Engine. These are the rarest group but they do exist 

Many gamers are unhappy with that much roleplaying or storytelling  and want a minis driven game and rules for most situations. D&D is a better fit for them 

The thing is it can be hard to get enough gamers to play any games together, much less oddball systems 

 IME gamers often play D&D as the least objectionable choice -- One or more gamers always seem to hate the pet game of another gamer and won't play it period. 
Since a compromise needs to be reached  D&D is the default choice. It is familiar and OK to most people. 

An analogy -- You and 5 friends want to go out to eat.
 One wants Thai, one wants Mexican, 3 want American and 1 wants Chinese. Since some of the people won't eat Thai, Mexican or Chinese the group ends up at Burger King. Only part of the group really wanted burgers but no one refused them either. 

I think that game publishers and writers (including myself) overestimate the amount of satisfaction that people get from D&D -- 

I would bet in many groups there are at least one or two players who would prefer another system or style at least part of the time . The difficulty in getting a group together can make it hard to make that happen so they suck it up and play D&D. 

At least thats better than not playing 

As for the market-- This is my opinion gaming is a fan hobby with room for 2 (maybe 3 if the numbers of gamers grows) main companies with real employees, a few part time  print companies  and lots of lots cost of entry PDF companies, a few  of which will make a living for the owner

This is a healthy vibrant market and provides ample support for all types of gamers. 

Now we as gamers need to get people away from Evercrack and LARPing and to the table but beyond that its a pretty good setup 

JMO I don't think the market will change much in the next few years -- D&D on top, WW in second everyone else bringing up the rear -- its been that way for more than 10 years or more 

I would love to get a million more players for alternate systems but given the limits of the hobby the current set up is pretty sweet


----------



## JamesDJarvis

Pants said:
			
		

> ....
> 2e may not be rules-lite, but it was liter than 3e...





Really?   How about when you factor in the skills and powers books?  Or the two or three variants on running in the PHB and so on


----------



## Desdichado

fredramsey said:
			
		

> Noted and filed.  :\



OK.   :\   It would have been nice if you could have addressed my questions though--y'know, in the interest of promoting better communication and understanding or something.  It seems you made a claim based on some information which was shown to be faulty, but you stuck to your claim anyway.  I don't know what you're trying to say--or perhaps more accurately, I don't see any evidence of anything you're trying to say.  I'm still trying to reach some understanding here of what you're getting at, though.  It's quite possible that I'm just not seeing something obvious--it happens to me all the time.


----------



## Desdichado

Ace said:
			
		

> IME gamers often play D&D as the least objectionable choice -- One or more gamers always seem to hate the pet game of another gamer and won't play it period.
> Since a compromise needs to be reached  D&D is the default choice. It is familiar and OK to most people.
> 
> An analogy -- You and 5 friends want to go out to eat.
> One wants Thai, one wants Mexican, 3 want American and 1 wants Chinese. Since some of the people won't eat Thai, Mexican or Chinese the group ends up at Burger King. Only part of the group really wanted burgers but no one refused them either.
> 
> I think that game publishers and writers (including myself) overestimate the amount of satisfaction that people get from D&D --



I completely agree and I've always had the nagging perspective that that was the missing element from the market research Dancey unveiled vs. anecdotal "common knowledge" on various Internet RPG discussion forums.


----------



## Gentlegamer

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Having more options will limit what you are capable of more than having less options? I disagree.



More rules = more options?  I think not.  When the concept of RPGs was explained to me years ago, it was something like this:

You can do anything.  You pretend like you are there.  You aren't limited to stay "on the board."

My first "rpg" sessions were exactly like this: my friend was DM, and I was the player.  We had no rules (didn't have a copy of D&D).  He drew dungeons and I was a warrior or thief or wizard (changed each time).  He adjudicated whatever actions I wanted without dice or set rules, just his judgement.  Those sessions were the most pure and "outside the box" RPG sessions I have ever participated in.  We were quite creative at 11 years old.

When I finally had a copy of the D&D rules, I became more constrained.  As time went on, my players (whom I had taught to play RPGs) and I became more and more constrained in what we conceptualized within the game because we were used to thinking in "rules terms."  

A several years ago, I came full circle when I realized how much my involvement with the rules had come to guide my thinking.  Seeing the rules for what they are, I was able to break free and become a better GM and better player, often surprising other GMs with my "creative" thinking while participating as a player character.


> EDIT: It's completely baed on the players not the rule system. A group of players who likes to do weird and crazy stunts will do so in a lite system or a heavy system. A group of players who doesn't like to do weird and crazy stunts won't do so in either system. A bad GM will flounder when the PCs break outside the box in either case, and a good GM will be able to run with it under either system.



Rules tend to train you to think in terms of the rules.  The fewer rules in general, the less constraint.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> Wow, your smugness is amazing dude. I mean, really, I thought *I* was arrogant.




I am smug and arrogant because I am always right.  Always.  Any indications that I may be wrong, well, I refer you back to step one.  



> Instead of grabbing the first 80 pounds worth of gaming material you use per session (because its "consistent", of course!) and beating them over the head with it, try to listen sometimes.




I did.  I'll get to the specific response in a moment.



> And just so you dont categorically dismiss my commentary as sour grapes or the shrill cry of another rules-lite emmisary, I can tell you right now I am running a D20 Star Wars game right now and loving it.




Cool.  Say, I created some d20 SW Starship Control sheets.  I'd appreciate whatever input you might have regarding them!

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=138755

Now that we're done with the preliminaries, I wonder if you actually read my post or the posts to which I was responding.

Some specifics are:



			
				fredramsey said:
			
		

> You know, the more I read about this guy, the more I think he is a total boob.






			
				Silverleaf said:
			
		

> It's all hot air, he's just trying to model a "study" after a premeditated conclusion.






			
				fredramsey said:
			
		

> like some kind of spoiled children. ... Am I the only one who sees their statements as juvenile and pointless?






			
				Gentelgamer said:
			
		

> Ryan Dancey is a putz!




Admittedly, the last was actually a response to my post - as was yours.

Now, let's go back to what *I* said:



			
				Me said:
			
		

> On the other hand, what I see are two of the biggest names in gaming making an comment based on some observed phenomena (whether or not you agree with the rigor of their data collection methodology*), and those people who are the supporters of "smaller games" - the underdogs, if you will - are just aching to be insulted so that they can point to the big guys and say, with injured nerd-pride, "We're better than them; see?"
> 
> * - To put it succinctly, "Ryan Dancey's results are not typical of my experience with rules lighter systems, and therefore I don't trust any conclusions based on his data" is a valid criticism of his comments.
> 
> "Ryan Dancey's a putz!" is not valid.
> 
> In this thread, I see a whole crapload of the latter, and not very much of the former.




Note, in my post, that there is absolutely no value judgement of those who enjoy rules-light games - heck, I'll play anything once or twice, given the chance.

Instead, there is a value judgement of those who enjoy rules-light games and are using this as an excuse for personal attacks on Ryan Dancey and Mike Mearls.

In other words, your criticism of me is not only misplaced, it's also nonsensical.  The only thing I could be logically accused of is hyperbole in my last sentence - there actually is a good amount of "Huh - I don't agree with his results / they don't match my experience"-style commentary, all of which was enlightening to read.

Some posters, however, couldn't contain themselves with attacking the position, and decided to attack the person instead.  I called them on it.


----------



## Quasqueton

> My first "rpg" sessions were exactly like this: my friend was DM, and I was the player. We had no rules (didn't have a copy of D&D). He drew dungeons and I was a warrior or thief or wizard (changed each time). He adjudicated whatever actions I wanted without dice or set rules, just his judgement. Those sessions were the most pure and "outside the box" RPG sessions I have ever participated in.



Serious question (not a bait): why did you move away from that and into a game system? Why don't you go back to playing with absolutely no rules, just DM adjudication? 

Quasqueton


----------



## reveal

*Patryn of Elvenshae* is a putz!

*stoke*stoke*stoke*


----------



## ThirdWizard

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> More rules = more options?  I think not.
> 
> ...
> 
> Rules tend to train you to think in terms of the rules.  The fewer rules in general, the less constraint.




Then what do more rules mean? D&D has rules for grappling, tripping, disarming, overruning, bull rushing, etc etc.

Are you claiming you are just as likely to attempt to do these things in a game that does not have these options (like O/BD&D)? You saying that you are more likely to attempt to do interesting and neat stunts in a rules-lite game than D&D becasue what?

My thought is that it isn't the game system that encourages these actions. It is the players and the GM.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

reveal said:
			
		

> *Patryn of Elvenshae* is a putz!




True, but irrelevant to the subject at hand!


----------



## GMSkarka

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Some posters, however, couldn't contain themselves with attacking the position, and decided to attack the person instead.  I called them on it.




...and some posters, with first-hand knowledge of the person, find it impossible to separate the person from the position, and explained why.


----------



## Pants

JamesDJarvis said:
			
		

> Really?   How about when you factor in the skills and powers books?  Or the two or three variants on running in the PHB and so on



I never got into those books.
I'm just talking Core books only really.

Besides, I never said that 2e was _consistent_, just there were less rules to worry about.


----------



## WizarDru

fredramsey said:
			
		

> And the rules lite fans would respond, "So what?"




Good for them.  That's why we have different systems.  I thought that was clear.



			
				fredramsey said:
			
		

> Granted, the Paladin and the Ranger had spells (and why the Ranger had spells is still a head scratcher, but I digress). But the point still stands: Do you really need rules for every aspect of a character? There was nothing stopping you in Basic D&D from playing a noble knight or an outdoorsman ranger. It did require *imagination*...



All well and good...but to some of us, it feels false and arbitrary with no real benefit, cost or difference other than lip service.  Every wizard was as good as every other wizard.  You could pretend that Mortimer was a great illusionist, while Snerd was a master necromancer...but that's all you were doing, IMHO: pretending.  The rules didn't support such an option, except by DM fiat.  That, in fact, is why we stopped using the Castle Falkenstein's native system and converted to GURPS (a couple of years ahead of the official conversion).  The mechanic in the game basically made the players slaves to the DM's whim...and worse, it felt boring.  Every conflict was resolved in the same dull, unsatisfying way.  This is not a condemnation of many rules-light systems that have more satisfying mechanics, by any stretch: but the point is that the complete lack of specificity made the entire endeavour unsatisfying.  It felt one-step removed from simply playing pretend...and if that's the case, why bother a game system at all?

Some of us simply prefer more complex systems.  If you prefer to think of us as unimaginative, that's your perogative.


----------



## Desdichado

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Serious question (not a bait): why did you move away from that and into a game system? Why don't you go back to playing with absolutely no rules, just DM adjudication?



I've given some pretty serious thought to --if not exactly that question, at least very closely related ones-- and I think the reason _*I*_ don't play that way is that it sucks, mostly.  It takes a very special group and GM to pull it off and not have it be a very frustrating experience for everyone involved.  And I say this as a relatively supportive person in the rules lite spectrum--I ignore huge chunks of the d20 rules on principle.

Yes, it does impose some constraints, but what isn't being said is that constraints aren't always bad.


----------



## Quasqueton

> "The fewer rules in general, the less constraint."
> 
> Then what do more rules mean? D&D has rules for grappling, tripping, disarming, overruning, bull rushing, etc etc.



Imagine a game with so many rules that the Players are completely paralyzed and unable to play at all. Reading the rules sucks all the imagination out of the reader's brain, and he is left an automaton.



Quasqueton


----------



## Plane Sailing

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> But look at Dogs in the Vineyard, and it explains what the game's about, how to make a character, and how to resolve conflicts. Then the GM's section explains how to create a scenario from scratch, specifically, in clear terms. I wouldn't give D&D 3.5 or Everway to a group who'd never played before, but if they were interesting in the setting for DitV, I think they could pick it up without help quite easily.




I had the great enjoyment of sitting down for a game of DitV at a con a month ago - the setting was different (jedi padawan in an outpost) but the DM explained the basic mechanics for us in about 10-15 mins, we chose some pregenerated characters (and how much time is spent generating new characters from scratch anyway? not many times per campaign in my experience) and we had three hours of excellent fun. Excellent fun.

Cheers


----------



## Turanil

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Big playstyle difference there. Most people I know would consider that quite "backwards" logic. First determine how heavy the boulders are, then determine if the PCs can move them quickly is how I have always seen it done. Thus it makes a huge difference. In one case, the PCs' ability to succed is based on thier own abilities. In the other DM's whim (if the DM didn't want them to be able to pass by the rubble, then it would conveniently be too heavy for the PCs to move).
> 
> Thus, big playstyle difference. One way is governed by PC ability, the other by DM whim. If this is how a rules-lite system is going to be, I personally would not like to play it.



Are you kidding? In _BOTH_ cases the fact that a player will or will not move a rock is based on DM's whim. Just in the case of relying on precise rules, the DM will have to make calculations so either it is of the appropriate weight so they can move it or not. Who put the rock, rubble, door, monster, whatever, here in the first place? It's the DM. And in the rule heavy game there are ECL and CR to determine how much hassle the PCs will have to get past a monster. So, it's NEVER about PCs' abilities, it's ALWAYS about DM's whim.


----------



## ThirdWizard

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Imagine a game with so many rules that the Players are completely paralyzed and unable to play at all. Reading the rules sucks all the imagination out of the reader's brain, and he is left an automaton.
> 
> 
> 
> Quasqueton




The problem lies in expectations. People read a rules book and find things that you can't do. Others read it and find things that they can. The system isn't going to change what kind of person you are. Thus far, I've never had my imagination sucked out by a book, but if I ever run into it, I'll let you know.


----------



## ThirdWizard

Turanil said:
			
		

> Are you kidding? In _BOTH_ cases the fact that a player will or will not move a rock is based on DM's whim. Just in the case of relying on precise rules, the DM will have to make calculations so either it is of the appropriate weight so they can move it or not. Who put the rock, rubble, door, monster, whatever, here in the first place? It's the DM. And in the rule heavy game there are ECL and CR to determine how much hassle the PCs will have to get past a monster. So, it's NEVER about PCs' abilities, it's ALWAYS about DM's whim.




In a rules heavy game the PCs get spot checks to see the sneaking assassin.

In rules-lite games the DM tells the PCs whether or not the PCs see the sneaking assassin.

If you can't tell the difference, then there isn't much I can do to explain it further.

EDIT: This is a generality, the exact example isn't the point. The resolution system is the point.


----------



## JamesDJarvis

diaglo said:
			
		

> OD&D 1974 - 1979+ a little over 5 years.




I don't know if I'd call a game with rules scattered over 4 rule books (over 120 pages total) with at least 5 different combat resolution systems Lite.  ( Chainmail, chain mail man-vs-man, fantasy combat matrix, aerial combat and the "new" optional combat system )


----------



## EricNoah

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> The problem lies in expectations. People read a rules book and find things that you can't do. Others read it and find things that they can. The system isn't going to change what kind of person you are. Thus far, I've never had my imagination sucked out by a book, but if I ever run into it, I'll let you know.




Quotable and true!  

I remember playing 2E and feeling that combat was pretty boring.  There was little you could do to increase tactical advantage, and so there was little reason to do so -- unless you had a DM who encouraged things that were outside of the scope of the rules (winging it on a case-by-case basis).  One thing I like about more elaborate combat rules is that it makes combats more interesting, at least in my games.  On the other hand, when the rules state that you can do X, Y, and Z, does it mean you can't do A, B or C unless explicitly stated?  I think that's what some rules-lite proponents believe.  I personally don't.


----------



## Quasqueton

> People read a rules book and find things that you can't do. Others read it and find things that they can.



Yeah, that is kind of funny isn't it. I just don't understand how some folks read something like:

Actions you can do: attack.

...and they can be all creative and imaginative with their game. "I can do all kinds of stuff, and attacking is just one option."

But if they read:

Actions you can do: attack, grapple, charge, disarm, trip, bullrush.

...and they suddenly get all restricted and limited. "I can only do 6 things? That's terribly limiting."


Quasqueton


----------



## fredramsey

I was saying that what RD and MM have been saying gives the appearance of d20 not only being more popular (which it is), but feels the need to put down so-called "rules lite" systems. This paints them with the Microsoft vs. the world brush (as an aside, I don't view MS as the big, bad evil thing Linux people make it out to be).

And my point was, why? Could D&D really exist totally in a vacuum? In my opinion, no. Nor is D&D threatened by *any* other company. So why engage in such talk to begin with.

Again, even though Dancy is no longer in the d20 business, his words obviously carry weight, or this thread wouldn't exist in the first place. So, I made an incorrect assumption about one of the two speakers. I was wrong. But, the impression they give, which is what my point was, does not change. And I consider their exclusionary talk and practices not only in bad taste, but not good business sense, in the long run.

How much would WOTC suffer if Dragon magazine contained stories dealing with other systems, like it did long ago? Would that suddenly make D&D less popular? I seriously doubt it.

So, I got a little hot under the collar when you seemed to imply that RD's employment was the total underpinning of my post. It wasn't. So I have strived here to make it clearer, which is hopefully the course I will endeavor to take in the future. Doing so will help me avoid having to chew Tums...

 



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> OK.   :\   It would have been nice if you could have addressed my questions though--y'know, in the interest of promoting better communication and understanding or something.  It seems you made a claim based on some information which was shown to be faulty, but you stuck to your claim anyway.  I don't know what you're trying to say--or perhaps more accurately, I don't see any evidence of anything you're trying to say.  I'm still trying to reach some understanding here of what you're getting at, though.  It's quite possible that I'm just not seeing something obvious--it happens to me all the time.


----------



## Desdichado

EricNoah said:
			
		

> when the rules state that you can do X, Y, and Z, does it mean you can't do A, B or C unless explicitly stated?  I think that's what some rules-lite proponents believe.  I personally don't.



Me neither, and ironically, with d20's relatively robust skill system, you've got a great set of tools in place to adjudicate all those things that aren't specifically called out.  I don't know how many times I've called for Balance, Jump, Tumble or other checks to cover some cool action my PCs have attempted to do in combat.


----------



## der_kluge

I think the kind of rules system you prefer greatly depends on what kind of game you want to play.  I feel like I've matured quite a bit when I say that one system is not better than the other. There is a time and a place for both systems.

I think that's what I was trying to say with my earlier post, but in a less elegant way.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Yeah, that is kind of funny isn't it. I just don't understand how some folks read something like:
> 
> Actions you can do: attack.
> 
> ...and they can be all creative and imaginative with their game. "I can do all kinds of stuff, and attacking is just one option."
> 
> But if they read:
> 
> Actions you can do: attack, grapple, charge, disarm, trip, bullrush.
> 
> ...and they suddenly get all restricted and limited. "I can only do 6 things? That's terribly limiting."
> 
> 
> Quasqueton



Add 5 foot squares, full actions, move equivalent actions, ect, etc. you too can see how the more detail added begins to shape your expectations of what actions you can perform.

Edit:  I remember clearly a GM (who was an old school AD&D veteran) telling me I couldn't charge an enemy because the movement had to be in a straight line.  His reason:  my character didn't line up so that it could charge a straight line _going by the battle grid_.  I had to remind him that the battle grid doesn't exist and straight line is the shortest distance between two points.  d20 had contracted his ability to conceptialize actions during the game.


----------



## fredramsey

I'm afraid that is putting words in the rules-lite game's mouth.

Rules-lite systems I have seen cover the basics. Notice being one of them. They just might not have 5 different ways of going about it.



			
				ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> In a rules heavy game the PCs get spot checks to see the sneaking assassin.
> 
> In rules-lite games the DM tells the PCs whether or not the PCs see the sneaking assassin.
> 
> If you can't tell the difference, then there isn't much I can do to explain it further.
> 
> EDIT: This is a generality, the exact example isn't the point. The resolution system is the point.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Of course. But, that's going into railroading. Most people on these boards hate railroading, and you are indirectly advocating it through your scenario. What the GM determines is the best solution, whether or not the PCs have spent resources (points in Strength) or not (points in something else) is irrelevant. The situation is taken out of the PCs hands and put into that of the GM, making their abilities and actions largely irrelevant.
> 
> This is perfectly valid, but not my playstyle.




I'm _realllllly_ not expressing myself well, I think. My apologies.

Part of this is my lack of ability to relate to the whole "Well, then it's just GM fiat" argument. We have as much "Player fiat" in the games I run, if anything. I give players pretty broad narration rights. I don't have prepared plots, and the players are responsible for deciding the direction they want to take their characters. So if you're reading what I'm saying as advocating railroading, we've got a big disconnect.

I'm not saying anything about what the best solution is. I am saying that it's the responsibility of the GM to come up with challenging, interesting situations. I sort of assumed that "what the GM determines is the best solution" isn't done anymore. 

I probably got off track with the whole silly boulder scenario. Someone was advocating "The rules should handle X specifically", where X was "how much can a character lift". What I was trying to say was, why is X so important that it's front and center stage? If it's part of an interesting conflict (or challenge, or whatever), then assign a difficulty. If it's not, then it's not worth spending "screen time" on.

Help me out here. Are you saying that if I go "Oh, those are pretty heavy, DC 25", instead of having predetermined the size of boulders that might fall randomly based on the stone makeup of the tunnel, that I'm railroading? I feel a little lost here.


----------



## ThirdWizard

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Add 5 foot squares, full actions, move equivalent actions, ect, etc. you too can see how the more detail added begins to shape your expectations of what actions you can perform.




Can I see an example of something you would do in a rules-lite game but not in D&D?


----------



## ThirdWizard

fredramsey said:
			
		

> I'm afraid that is putting words in the rules-lite game's mouth.
> 
> Rules-lite systems I have seen cover the basics. Notice being one of them. They just might not have 5 different ways of going about it.




Like I said, the example wasn't important. He just didn't like the boulder example for some reason. 

Do you share the oppinion that all actions in the game are actually GM railroading and rules-heavy systems are just trying to cover up this fact?


----------



## fredramsey

*My Conclusion*

Well, this has been about as fruitful as a version war.

We each have our preferences, and our levels of tolerance for trying new things. Some of us have never tried X, and are sure they wouldn't like it. Some of us have tried X, Y, and Z, and have settled on X.

And, like in version wars, nothing that is said here by anyone is going to change anyone's mind.

Personally, I don't know how these things suck me in, but they do.

Whatever game you play, have fun, and you'll be doing it correctly.

Over and out.


----------



## RFisher

I don't really disagree with the Dancey quote. The complexity of the rules is, for the most part, othogonal to how easy the game is to learn. e.g. I would never give Fudge or Risus to a group of novices. Now, Fudge is actually a pretty great first system if you've got an experience GM. But, guess what, that's pretty much true of _every_ game.

As Eric Noah pointed out, how fast you play the game really isn't an important metric. It is also somewhat orthogonal to complexity. It will take me a lot longer to create a RAW Fudge PC than a D&D3e PC because Fudge doesn't lay out some options for me to use as starting points. I actually have to spend time coming up with a character concept.

(Please note that I don't consider either better. I actually prefer having almost no character concept & letting the concept evolve with the character rather than having a concept up front.)

& even beyond chargen, I don't prefer lighter systems because I think they save time in play.

It is certainly true that its easier to figure out how to build a business off a complex system than a simple one. I believe it is possible for the publisher of a simple roleplaying game to be successful, although it may require measuring success in different terms than Hasbro does.

Though, business models don't matter much to me, & as much as it would sadden me, I think the hobby could survive the death of the industry.


----------



## Desdichado

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Add 5 foot squares, full actions, move equivalent actions, ect, etc. you too can see how the more detail added begins to shape your expectations of what actions you can perform.



I don't.  Not picking on any one person, as I've got no idea who's said this, but a common complaint (or perhaps insult) from rules lite folks is that rules heavy systems cater to gamers with little imagination who can't think of things to do with their character unless it's spelled out for them.  And then ironically, those same folks seem to be stymied that they can't figure out how to do something that's not specifically called out in the rules of a game like d20. Who is it that lacks imagination again?

To me, d20--five foot squares, move equivalent actions, attacks of opportunity, etc. and all, is one of the most robust toolsets out there for doing any action I (or my players) can imagine.  We have games that range from fragile, PC-death horror games to games that would make any Feng Shui player proud, all using the d20 tools at our disposal, and without turning into micromanagement of rules and books.  As has been said more than once in this thread, it's more about the personality and taste of the players in question than anything else.  Yes, we could be little d20 accountants, cross-checking every point of Difficulty Class against the rules, or we could accept that for some wild, swashbuckling attack by swinging in on a rope, smashing your feet into the orc's face and knocking him off of the balcony -- "uh, make a Use Rope check DC 20, and if you're successful, you can make a Bull Rush attempt with a +3 circumsance bonus."

We prefer the latter.  And for us, d20 offers a very robust toolset with which to work.


----------



## NewLifeForm

*Can only comment on my own experience...*

IME, setup usually takes the same amount of time regardless of the system, as long as you aren't figuring out the total encumberance for every item that every NPC is carrying   

Generally speaking, I play a sort of rules-lite D&D 3E, with a lot of stuff left by the wayside because it slows down play (fatigue, encumberance, cover and the like are handled off the cuff and follow common sense more then rules).

I don't agree that play is the same however. Most rules-lite games (Risus, TFOS, Sketch, Fudge and it's variants, Original D6 Star Wars, etc.) do play alot faster. With these games there is little to no looking up rules in the middle of play and no charts. I find there are few arguements, though this is mostly because those players who *want* to play a rules-lite games *expect* the GM to wing it.

My main question with Mr. Dancey's experiment is whether the players were given Toon and like Rolemaster ( The Game for People who Enjoy Charts(TM) ). If I slow down to look something up, it ruins the often manic flavor of my games and my players will think I'm getting old and losing my touch (well not re...actually yes, they would think that). That is of course, my players. This may not be true with all groups and certainly your speed and mileage may vary. 

I happen to be startng a new campaign with my group this Sunday after not having run anything with them in almost a year (I've been running pick-up games with my wife and some other friends). The campaign is set in Terry Pratchett's Discworld universe. The system is homebrew, but largely resembles a more detailed Risus or simplified WEG D6 system. Why this system? It's easy for me as the GM to create NPCs, combat is quick and my group is more concerned with the story and doing cool and dramatic stuff then they are with rules.

NewLifeForm
"The Plays the Thing..."


----------



## Gentlegamer

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Can I see an example of something you would do in a rules-lite game but not in D&D?



Finish combat in a timely manner!  *zing!*

Seriously though, you can do anything in both.  The point I make is that the more rules there are, the more likely they are to constrict and guide your conceptualizing in game actions.  They also can encourage the GM to dissallow actions not explicitly allowed or spelled out by the game.


----------



## Desdichado

RFisher said:
			
		

> I don't really disagree with the Dancey quote. The complexity of the rules is, for the most part, othogonal to how easy the game is to learn. e.g. I would never give Fudge or Risus to a group of novices. Now, Fudge is actually a pretty great first system if you've got an experience GM. But, guess what, that's pretty much true of _every_ game.



Whereas I, on the other hand, introduced my smallish children to roleplaying games with The Window, which is equally non-complex, and I'd recommend a similar set-up to any RPG novice.  And I did it without using fancy words like orthogonal (what's wrong with perpendicular, anyway?)


----------



## SweeneyTodd

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> In a rules heavy game the PCs get spot checks to see the sneaking assassin.
> 
> In rules-lite games the DM tells the PCs whether or not the PCs see the sneaking assassin.
> 
> If you can't tell the difference, then there isn't much I can do to explain it further.
> 
> EDIT: This is a generality, the exact example isn't the point. The resolution system is the point.




Okay, this helps. I really think that you're conflating "rules light" with "GM decides". If the GM, for some bizarre reason, wants to have an unspottable assassin, they've chosen to do so. Are you saying that the players should go "Whoa, back up, couldn't I have spotted him?" I think that's reasonable in any system. Is the difference that in the first case, the players can point to a rule that says they get to check?

I'm getting this feeling that maybe you're saying that complex rules offer a defense against a bad GM. I suppose that's true; if you have a GM who always says "no" unless what you want to do is specifically spelled out in the rulebook, then yeah, you want as many rules as possible. 

But I don't get why _anyone_ would want to play with a GM who constantly says "no", or is out to get the players, regardless of the rules you're using. Because the GM typically has a lot more power than the players, I don't understand why people would give that power to someone they don't trust. Rules don't offer all that much defense, except for maybe channeling a disruptive GM's "bad urges" into areas not covered by the rules.


----------



## ThirdWizard

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> Help me out here. Are you saying that if I go "Oh, those are pretty heavy, DC 25", instead of having predetermined the size of boulders that might fall randomly based on the stone makeup of the tunnel, that I'm railroading? I feel a little lost here.




Trying not to use the world "railroading" becuase I don't want to derail the thread (pun intended) over what is and is not railroading, I'll try to clarify.

I'm saying if player strength is largely irrelevant to whether or not the PCs succeed or fail at a strength related ability, then the system has failed in a degree, in my eyes. The amount the character can lift doesn't have to be front and center, but it should be quantifiable in some way lest the ability to use said strength fall out of the players' hands.

Bring it to something else. Say that there is a pit blocking the PCs and there is no jump resolution system. If the GM wants the players to be able to jump it, then they can jump it, and if the GM doesn't want them to be able to to jump it then they can't. Now it is true that a DM in D&D could just make it huge or small, but there are many points in between. The monk character might be able to jump extremely far, whereas the paladin in full plate can't make it at all. At this point, player choices have a real impact on the outcome of their actions. There's more struggle, more suspense, and more satisfaction over success, to me personally, in this type of scenario.

So, playstyle difference. In the end, I'll play what makes me have more fun, which for me is a rules-heavy system. Other people will play what they prefer, which might be a rules-lite system, or no system at all (as someone pointed out message board roleplaying with no rules are _extremely _popular).

Now, if you disagree with the premise, then I'm all ears. This is, of course, all oppinion.


----------



## Quasqueton

> Add 5 foot squares, full actions, move equivalent actions, ect, etc. you too can see how the more detail added begins to shape your expectations of what actions you can perform.



Nope, I don't see that. I see how my choice of action will fall in place during the game "segment". The rules tell me how the choice of action will resolve. They don't tell me what action I should choose.



> Edit: I remember clearly a GM (who was an old school AD&D veteran) telling me I couldn't charge an enemy because the movement had to be in a straight line. His reason: my character didn't line up so that it could charge a straight line going by the battle grid. I had to remind him that the battle grid doesn't exist and straight line is the shortest distance between two points. d20 had contracted his ability to conceptialize actions during the game.



Oh, well, there's a great point. A DM had a brainfart and that proves that the d20 mechanics raped his brain and made him stupid. Maybe I should put away my books before my mind is completely drained of intelligence? [/sarcasm]

Edit: Oh, and the concept that you have to charge along a straight battlegrid line is not in the rules. So using that as an example of bad rules is disingenuous.

Quasqueton


----------



## der_kluge

It seems to me that we have players advocating a more rules-heavy system, and GMs advocating a more rules-light approach.

Or am I misinterpreting things?

Ultimately, isn't that the holy grail?  Players can customize and have control over the game, and GMs can run a campaign without quitting their day job?


----------



## NewLifeForm

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> The point I make is that the more rules there are, the more likely they are to constrict and guide your conceptualizing in game actions.  They also can encourage the GM to dissallow actions not explicitly allowed or spelled out by the game.




In D&D and most similar games you can be an Elf, Dwarf, Human, Halfling (I've always wanted to play a Fullling!) and the other established species native to most D&D campaigns. You can then choose from an assortment of classes. If you can dig through the massive mountain of books in your collection, you can, after a time, locate the book that has the odd species and/or class concept your looking for.

For my current campaign I sent out an email that said, "What do you want to be?"

I ended up with a Human Mercenary, a Wood Nymph, An Elf-blooded Human who became a Ranger after failing to make it as a Paladin, a Demon Hunter who dislikes violence, and a few weird ones   

It's a mind set more then anything else.

NewLifeForm


----------



## Desdichado

As someone said back on page 2 or so, there seems to be a fair amount of confusion between rules lite and rules insufficient game systems.  Neither the boulder nor the spotting the assassin example illustrates anything about rules light systems, as is claimed.  They illustrate problems with rules insufficient systems instead.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Like I said, the example wasn't important. He just didn't like the boulder example for some reason.
> 
> Do you share the oppinion that all actions in the game are actually GM railroading and rules-heavy systems are just trying to cover up this fact?




Doh! I'm still confused. I thought this was what you were saying. Do you read this as what I was saying? 

What I was trying (badly) to get across is that everything in the game is imaginary. I know I said "GM whim", but I was quoting someone. Everything in the game has been created by someone at the table, and in any functional group that's definately going to include both players and GM.

I don't think "Saying it's all make-believe" is the same as saying "The GM railroads". The former is always true. GMs have power at the table, power to create things from whole cloth. (Hopefully the players do, too.) Nobody should be using this power to block out anyone else's creative input.

I guess what I was saying is "Any game can be broken by the GM, or played well, and rules heavy systems require more effort to do both."


----------



## Remathilis

Turanil said:
			
		

> Are you kidding? In _BOTH_ cases the fact that a player will or will not move a rock is based on DM's whim. Just in the case of relying on precise rules, the DM will have to make calculations so either it is of the appropriate weight so they can move it or not. Who put the rock, rubble, door, monster, whatever, here in the first place? It's the DM. And in the rule heavy game there are ECL and CR to determine how much hassle the PCs will have to get past a monster. So, it's NEVER about PCs' abilities, it's ALWAYS about DM's whim.




As ThirdWizard said, the difference is how much control the player vs. the GM has in determining EXACTLY what your character's powers and limitations are. 

My fighter is a blacksmith. What can he make with this skill? How long does it take? how much gold does he need in raw material? How good are his wares? How skilled IS he? Is he more skilled the my friend's fighter?

D&D would say: This is all a function of the craft skill. You put skill points into it to show your skill, you use the formula to determine cost and time. You can make more expensive goods buy spending more gp/time to make them. You are only as skilled as your ranks + ability score + any special mods. 

A RL system might say: Your blacksmithing is a function of your strength score. Make a strength check to see if you make a good item. IF you roll exceptionally, I'll say the item is exceptional. I'll say it takes two weeks to make a large item, one for a small item. Cost? uh, well, iron is poor here so you'll make items at 1/3 cost to buy them. Oh yeah, since you and your friend have the same str score, you're equally as good, but I might give you a +2 to your check because your backstory says your a blacksmith...

OR IT MIGHT SAY: Your blacksmithing is a function of your intelligence (or wisdom, or con, etc). You must roll an intelligence check to make an item, failure means the item is wasted. It takes a week to use your skill, but I'll make it longer if your unreasonable (iron doors, etc). Cost? 1/2 gold. Your as good a blacksmith as anyone else with the same intelligence score...

OR IT MIGHT SAY: Yeah, you can make simple blacksmithing stuff. It doesn't matter. You do it. 

You get the point.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Bring it to something else. Say that there is a pit blocking the PCs and there is no jump resolution system. If the GM wants the players to be able to jump it, then they can jump it, and if the GM doesn't want them to be able to to jump it then they can't. Now it is true that a DM in D&D could just make it huge or small, but there are many points in between. The monk character might be able to jump extremely far, whereas the paladin in full plate can't make it at all. At this point, player choices have a real impact on the outcome of their actions. There's more struggle, more suspense, and more satisfaction over success, to me personally, in this type of scenario.




Aha! Now I think I'm getting you. Sorry, definately a point where I failed to communicate.

I'm not advocating a system without attributes, or difficulty levels. This situation would be handled in a rules-light system by something like "Roll Body, you need 4 successes. Bob, you're in platemail, you need 5." The guy with more Body dice is going to have a better chance of making it. Players' choices in character construction provide ability, and challenges provide an opposing value. So in some systems, mechanically the jumping across a pit works pretty similarly to lifting a weight, or spotting a thief, or what have you. Trait vs. difficulty. 

Then again, on the other hand, I'd be unlikely to roll at all, unless it was a chase situation where they've got to get across right now. If there's nothing at stake (or if the result of failure is uninteresting, like "Aahhhh... *splat*", then I let them narrate the result themselves. Player choice factors in there, too, but at the social level and not the rules level. We probably have a dozen rolls, if that, per session, and they're usually of the "Oh, this is really bad" variety. 

(For what it's worth, I think this is a useful discussion, and I don't think tempers are flaring. I'm only responding so often because I find it interesting.)


----------



## JamesDJarvis

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Edit:  I remember clearly a GM (who was an old school AD&D veteran) telling me I couldn't charge an enemy because the movement had to be in a straight line.  His reason:  my character didn't line up so that it could charge a straight line _going by the battle grid_.  I had to remind him that the battle grid doesn't exist and straight line is the shortest distance between two points.  d20 had contracted his ability to conceptialize actions during the game.




It wasn't D20 contracting his ability to conceptualize actions it was his not reading the rules or not understanding the rules that got in the way.  The rule book has examples that show folks what it means by "straight line".


----------



## Remathilis

der_kluge said:
			
		

> It seems to me that we have players advocating a more rules-heavy system, and GMs advocating a more rules-light approach.
> 
> Or am I misinterpreting things?
> 
> Ultimately, isn't that the holy grail?  Players can customize and have control over the game, and GMs can run a campaign without quitting their day job?




Yes. Exactly. Its about power.

A RH system gives more power to the players because they have a firmer grip on what they can do and have rules they can use to do them.

A RL system gives more power to the DM because he can adjunctate the game without being pounded to death by hundreds of rules. 

I doubt there will ever be a happy medium.


----------



## Quasqueton

> It seems to me that we have players advocating a more rules-heavy system, and GMs advocating a more rules-light approach.
> 
> Or am I misinterpreting things?
> 
> Ultimately, isn't that the holy grail? Players can customize and have control over the game, and GMs can run a campaign without quitting their day job?



I think it comes down to some are saying one is by definition better than the other. Or that one is by definition worse than the other. That one decreases imagination, or that one opens creativity.

I do not find that one increases the fun, nor that one decreases the fun.

Quasqueton


----------



## ThirdWizard

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> Doh! I'm still confused. I thought this was what you were saying. Do you read this as what I was saying?




Not at all. That was in response to Turanil's "So, it's NEVER about PCs' abilities, it's ALWAYS about DM's whim." To which I disagree, because that would imply to me that he believes that the PCs abilities are completely irrelevant to the game. I can't agree with that on principle.



> I don't think "Saying it's all make-believe" is the same as saying "The GM railroads". The former is always true. GMs have power at the table, power to create things from whole cloth. (Hopefully the players do, too.) Nobody should be using this power to block out anyone else's creative input.




Agreed there. The world around the PCs (and its reaction to them) is entirely in the hands of the GM. This is not a bad thing.



> I guess what I was saying is "Any game can be broken by the GM, or played well, and rules heavy systems require more effort to do both."




Hmm... well I'll say a good player/GM will be able to pull off either a rules-heavy or rules-lite system. A rules-heavy game can more easily hide a poor GM's bad abilities, as well.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Oh, well, there's a great point. A DM had a brainfart and that proves that the d20 mechanics raped his brain and made him stupid. Maybe I should put away my books before my mind is completely drained of intelligence? [/sarcasm]
> 
> Edit: Oh, and the concept that you have to charge along a straight battlegrid line is not in the rules. So using that as an example of bad rules is disingenuous.
> 
> Quasqueton



Never said the rules said you had to charge along straight battlegrid lines.  What I did say was the way the rules were set up caused my friend's conception of in game actions to contract.  Yes, it was a brain fart, but he NEVER would have thought such a thing playing AD&D.


----------



## ThirdWizard

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> As someone said back on page 2 or so, there seems to be a fair amount of confusion between rules lite and rules insufficient game systems. Neither the boulder nor the spotting the assassin example illustrates anything about rules light systems, as is claimed. They illustrate problems with rules insufficient systems instead.




Note that was in response to someone saying that all roleplaying is consists of DM fiat and railroadig. It was less to do with rules-lite systems and more illustrating a point. Like I said, the example given was largely irrelevant. Pick any situation that a lite system doesn't cover and use that.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

der_kluge said:
			
		

> It seems to me that we have players advocating a more rules-heavy system, and GMs advocating a more rules-light approach.
> 
> Or am I misinterpreting things?
> 
> Ultimately, isn't that the holy grail?  Players can customize and have control over the game, and GMs can run a campaign without quitting their day job?




From what I've read on these boards and elsewhere, that's how a lot of people play. I think some players would be pretty surprised if they saw how little was actually "behind the curtain".


----------



## Desdichado

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Note that was in response to someone saying that all roleplaying is consists of DM fiat and railroadig. It was less to do with rules-lite systems and more illustrating a point. Like I said, the example given was largely irrelevant. Pick any situation that a lite system doesn't cover and use that.



If that's true, then can I paraphrase your statement into "All Rules Lite systems are insufficient?"


----------



## Quasqueton

> Yes, it was a brain fart, but he NEVER would have thought such a thing playing AD&D.



You never would have charged in AD&D. There was no game mechanic for it. You would have just moved up and attacked -- something you can still do in D&D3.

Quasqueton


----------



## SweeneyTodd

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Agreed there. The world around the PCs (and its reaction to them) is entirely in the hands of the GM. This is not a bad thing.




That's actually one of the things I think should change, and I don't play that way -- but that's totally off topic. 



> Hmm... well I'll say a good player/GM will be able to pull off either a rules-heavy or rules-lite system. A rules-heavy game can more easily hide a poor GM's bad abilities, as well.




Then I'll say "Then I'm not a good GM", because I run games the players love with light systems, and eh, am mediocre with the more complex ones.

And with that, I've proved I'm not qualified to continue the discussion, and I bow out.  (Rules-light game to run tonight, best get ready.)


----------



## Remathilis

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> If that's true, then can I paraphrase your statement into "All Rules Lite systems are insufficient?"




You COULD go further and say "All Rules systems are insufficient" but RL seem by the nature to be moreso than RH.


----------



## ThirdWizard

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> If that's true, then can I paraphrase your statement into "All Rules Lite systems are insufficient?"




More like "Rules-lite systems make it inherently more difficult for players to control the outcome of situations than rules-heavy systems. From my own personal standpoint, this doesn't give me enough satisfaction in playing the game because I feel less threatend by it."

I GM more than I act as a player, by the way. As a GM, I want less "power" in game so I can concentrate more on the game than figuring out how things should work. I like the fact, for example, that there is a jump skill the players can use to tell me if they make the jump or not so that I don't have to worry about such things. As a player, I like it because I know that my decision to put points in jump helped me cross this ledge (or likewise, my decison not to led to me falling).


----------



## Gentlegamer

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> You never would have charged in AD&D. There was no game mechanic for it. You would have just moved up and attacked -- something you can still do in D&D3.
> 
> Quasqueton



Maybe you would have never charged . . . we weren't limited by what the game spelled out.  At any rate, we had played lots of Zeb the Destroyer AD&D, which certainly did have a rule for charging during combat.


----------



## ThirdWizard

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> Then I'll say "Then I'm not a good GM", because I run games the players love with light systems, and eh, am mediocre with the more complex ones.
> 
> And with that, I've proved I'm not qualified to continue the discussion, and I bow out.  (Rules-light game to run tonight, best get ready.)




 I can't count the number of times I've posted here instead of prepare for a game.


----------



## Psion

der_kluge said:
			
		

> It seems to me that we have players advocating a more rules-heavy system, and GMs advocating a more rules-light approach.




Ahem.

I as a GM prefer rules heavy. Because I feel many creative heads are better than one and I appreciate the benefit of forthought, and I feel as if the players deserve to have a small handle on the rules of reality, and because I am a setting-driven GM vice story driven.

I also don't buy into the mentality that in heavier systems, if it's not in the rules you can't do it. If anything, quite the opposite. Already having several examples in place of how the system handles a variety of situations, and given a flexible baseline system, it is that much clearer to me to handle similar situations and not feeling like I am simply throwing caution to the wind.

As the sig says, I use the rules, not let the rules use me.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> *we weren't limited by what the game spelled out.*  At any rate, we had played lots of Zeb the Destroyer AD&D, which certainly did have a *rule for charging during combat.*




Quoted for irony.


----------



## Desdichado

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I GM more than I act as a player, by the way. As a GM, I want less "power" in game so I can concentrate more on the game than figuring out how things should work. I like the fact, for example, that there is a jump skill the players can use to tell me if they make the jump or not so that I don't have to worry about such things. As a player, I like it because I know that my decision to put points in jump helped me cross this ledge (or likewise, my decison not to led to me falling).



My position exactly.  Of course, all of my players also DM/GM as much as I do, so that probably changes the way we play somewhat.


----------



## buzz

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> What I'm trying to say is that it's entirely possible to play a challenging, believable game where the mechanics handle "can you achieve your goal", without knowing concrete specifics about everything.



True dat.

I think that rules "lite" can be successful as long as the game isn't also trying to be simulationist. In a simulationist game, a PC being able to jump a chasm possibly takes into account their Str, the width of the chasm, the amount of wind, whether the PC gets a running start, the surface being jumped onto, etc.

In a narrativist game, it will matter more if it's _dramatically appropriate_ for the PC to succeed on the jump, or if they have a trait/stat/advantage like "Will Not Rest Until Father Is Avenged" or something.

In the former case, there's kind of a disconnect; how "realistic" is it if it's the GM who determines whether the jump succeeds? In the latter, the player is empowered a bit more, and it doesn't seem "unrealistic" if the mechanic is dead simple. Sure there's still a lot of DM fiat, but it seems a better starting point, IMO.


----------



## rogueattorney

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> You never would have charged in AD&D. There was no game mechanic for it.




???
There certainly was one in 1e.


----------



## JamesDJarvis

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> You never would have charged in AD&D. There was no game mechanic for it. You would have just moved up and attacked -- something you can still do in D&D3.
> 
> Quasqueton





Yes, there were rules for charging in AD&D. In first and second edition.


----------



## buzz

fredramsey said:
			
		

> I was saying that what RD and MM have been saying gives the appearance of d20 not only being more popular (which it is), but feels the need to put down so-called "rules lite" systems.



I still don't think they're really "putting down" anything. The main thrust of the argument is success in the market, not the quality of the design.



			
				fredramsey said:
			
		

> This paints them with the Microsoft vs. the world brush (as an aside, I don't view MS as the big, bad evil thing Linux people make it out to be).



Okay, someone in the game industry has been compared to Microsoft. I think we can end the thread now. 



			
				fredramsey said:
			
		

> How much would WOTC suffer if Dragon magazine contained stories dealing with other systems, like it did long ago? Would that suddenly make D&D less popular? I seriously doubt it.



WotC might not suffer, but Paizo certainly would. Even covering other d20 games in _Dungeon_ turned out to be hurting sales. _Dragon_ readers have overwhelimngly pushed for the magazine of be all-D&D, all the time.


----------



## Quasqueton

> Maybe you would have never charged . . . we weren't limited by what the game spelled out.



So, your DM allowed you to charge back when there was no rule for it, but you say that a DM didn't allow you to do it now that there is a rule for it.

"We used to get to school just fine back when we had no car. But now I can't get to school at all because Dad misplaced the keys to the car."

You're using double standards.

Quasqueton


----------



## Gentlegamer

Firstly, there was a rule for charging in AD&D, both original and Zeb edition.  Secondly,my point was general, concerning "allowed" actions.


----------



## Quasqueton

> There certainly was one in 1e.





> Yes, there were rules for charging in AD&D. In first and second edition.



What was the rule, please (AD&D1)? All I remember is there being a penalty (possibility of the enemy having set weapons against a charge) for "charging". I don't remember any benefit to the charger.

Quasqueton


----------



## Quasqueton

> Secondly,my point was general, concerning "allowed" actions.



Yes, your point was that if the rule didn't exist, the DM still allowed the action. If the rule did exist, a DM could misunderstand the rule and disallow the action. You're comparing a good DM without a rule and a bad DM with a rule.

Quasqueton


----------



## buzz

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I don't.  Not picking on any one person, as I've got no idea who's said this, but a common complaint (or perhaps insult) from rules lite folks is that rules heavy systems cater to gamers with little imagination who can't think of things to do with their character unless it's spelled out for them.  And then ironically, those same folks seem to stymied that they can't figure out how to do something that's not specifically called out in the rules of a game like d20. Who is it that lacks imagination again?



You know, I actually find HERO to be ridiculously liberating when it comes to inventive combats, and HERO is arguably even more complex (in some ways) than your average d20 game. I love that my PC can try anything, and be supported rules-wise as they do it. It's awesome.

OTOH, I felt quite a bit at sea when I ran _Buffy_. I mean, even initiative in _Buffy_ is left to GM fiat. I knid of felt that I was just telling the players what they could do, as opposed to _adjudicating_ what the players did. Not that I don't really like _Buffy_, but I think that next time I'd opt to use more rules options.

Mearls touched on this in a blog posting about why he loves battlemats. Basically, having exact locations lain out empowers the players. Wihtout minis, combats become "mother may I". Player: "Am I close enough to hit him?" GM: "Yeah, sure. Go ahead." The player has no power.

Granted, as I mentioned in a post above, this can be minitaged if tactical placement is irrelevant to the resolution system. E.g., Player: "Am I able to attack him?" GM: "What traits do you have?" Player: " I have 'My Name Is Inigo Montoya, You Killed My Father, Prepare To Die' at Rank 17." GM: "That's two higher than his 'Spineless Coward' trait, so you can make your attack." 

Yes, I'm looking at _HeroQuest_ here.


----------



## mcrow

Psion said:
			
		

> Ahem.
> 
> I as a GM prefer rules heavy. Because I feel many creative heads are better than one and I appreciate the benefit of forthought, and I feel as if the players deserve to have a small handle on the rules of reality, and because I am a setting-driven GM vice story driven.





I feel the same way about RH & RL. I have played both and have liked both but prefer RH as a player for the crunchy bits. As a GM RH & RL are a toss up though. On one hand RL has less stats/stat blocks to worry about so therefore less time spent on that aspect. RL also forces you to be a more of a on the fly GM, so if you don't like GMing on the fly this sytem will suck for you. RH  OTOH requires much more stating which equals more prep time but the players have a better idea of what is or isn't going to work. Knowing more the players can then contribute more to the game and won't be affraid to ask if they can do something. 

I guess it all depends on taste for the players & GMs.  Just so certain people don't go saying one system is better because it sells more. That's like saying Walmart is the best store to shop @ because they have higher gross sales than any other retailer. Walmart might vary well be the best store to shop @ if your primarily worried about price on the next set of tools you buy but if you are more worried about quality you would go to Sears.


----------



## JamesDJarvis

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> What was the rule, please (AD&D1)? All I remember is there being a penalty (possibility of the enemy having set weapons against a charge) for "charging". I don't remember any benefit to the charger.
> 
> Quasqueton





Well then clearly there were mechanics, ones you do not recall completely.

+2 to hit.  Move quicker then when you aren't charging.  (incomplete but that is right off the top of my head)


----------



## Gentlegamer

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Yes, your point was that if the rule didn't exist, the DM still allowed the action. If the rule did exist, a DM could misunderstand the rule and disallow the action. You're comparing a good DM without a rule and a bad DM with a rule.
> 
> Quasqueton



My friend was not a bad DM!  I'm merely giving an anecdote how exposure to a RH system contracted his conceptions of certain things.  I said RH have a tendancy to do this, not that they invariable do so.


----------



## rogueattorney

JamesDJarvis said:
			
		

> Well then clearly there were mechanics, ones you do not recall completely.
> 
> +2 to hit.  Move quicker then when you aren't charging.  (incomplete but that is right off the top of my head)




Yup.  Faster speed, +2 to hit, lost any Dex bonus, init determined by longer weapon.  Certain weapons doubled damage roll when charging (lance) or set (spear).

R.A.


----------



## Gentlegamer

buzz said:
			
		

> Granted, as I mentioned in a post above, this can be minitaged if tactical placement is irrelevant to the resolution system. E.g., Player: "Am I able to attack him?" GM: "What traits do you have?" Player: " I have 'My Name Is Inigo Montoya, You Killed My Father, Prepare To Die' at Rank 17." GM: "That's two higher than his 'Spineless Coward' trait, so you can make your attack."



I"m rather fond of "Kill Every Mutha in the Room" . . .


----------



## Umbran

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> As someone said back on page 2 or so, there seems to be a fair amount of confusion between rules lite and rules insufficient game systems.




There is no objective definition of where the line between sufficient and insufficient lies.  One man's light but sufficient is another man's insufficient.  Not a matter of confustion as a difference of opinion.


----------



## Turanil

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> In a rules heavy game the PCs get spot checks to see the sneaking assassin.
> 
> In rules-lite games the DM tells the PCs whether or not the PCs see the sneaking assassin.



What you want is a sense of verisimilitude that RH gives more than RL. However, RL doesn't mean there is no spot check involved to see the thief coming. For me rule-lite is about less calculations of squares, movement, bonus of this because of that, etc. Now in the RL system the assassin makes a stealth roll and the victim a detect roll all the same. And if the DM decides to kill the PC anyway, he uses potions of invisiblity, min-max the assassin and what not. Much more work, but in the end it's the DM who decides. A bad DM is bad whatever the rules, but a RH may give a sense of more structured play at the expense of speed.


----------



## Andre

NewLifeForm said:
			
		

> Generally speaking, I play a sort of rules-lite D&D 3E, with a lot of stuff left by the wayside because it slows down play (fatigue, encumberance, cover and the like are handled off the cuff and follow common sense more then rules).




I suspect every group does this to some extent. It's the old 80/20 rule. 80% of gameplay uses 20% of the rules. Whether or not to use the other 80% is up to the individual group. 3E is so rules heavy, I doubt there is a single group on the face of the planet that uses 100% of the rules (even if they could somehow collect them all in one place, resolve the contradictions between various published sources, etc). My group certainly doesn't.

Is it easier to start with a rules-lite system and add some complexity myself, or start with a rules-heavy system and strip out some of the complexity? Probably the latter. For instance, my group recently gave up on AoO's for movement - it slowed down play too much for the benefit. Yes, it's changed gameplay somewhat, but not dramatically. Trying to add such a mechanic to a lighter system would be more difficult (which brings to mind the comment about GM's needing to be game designers posted earlier). But if I were to game with another group, I would still know how AoO's work, which is a benefit of rules-heavy systems.

When is a rules-heavy system too much? When finding a rule is takes more time than it's worth. Note, you don't have to have all the rules memorized, but the GM does need to find them in a reasonable amount of time. This is an area where a good rules-lite system is inherently superior to its rules-heavy competition. But that's no excuse for the disorganized 3.x core books. Hero is certainly not rules-lite, but I have no problem finding what I need quickly. In 3.x? Just figuring out which book has which rules can be an exercise in illogic. Rules-heavy systems can be usuable, but they require more organization and play aids for that purpose.


----------



## howandwhy99

I play in both a rules lite game and a rules heavy 3.5 game. Both every couple of weeks. Character creation takes considerably longer with 3.5. I use Heroforge and have used multiple other chargen software too. This cuts the time down considerably, but it still takes 5-10 minutes even if you have every feat, skill, and piece of equipment memorized.

In our rules light game it takes us less than 30 seconds without a computer. (practically nothing with one). This includes equipment purchasing and background. I'm not joking. Granted people often spend more time writing up a detailed background and personality after the fact. But these tend to be more important during the play of the character than most games. 

Both games are fun, but we spend the majority of time in each doing vastly different activities. Each game's play tends to focus on what their rules engender. Our 3.5 game has several rule wiz players in it. Plus we prep a lot in terms of spells on hand, power descriptions, etc. This really cuts down on rule questions (and look ups). However, we focus mostly on what skill, feat, spell, or power will help us accomplish our PC's goals. There is a lot of roleplaying still, but the rules are prominent.

Our rules light game has never needed a player to open a book to check on a rule. (not to my knowledge anyway and after 20 sessions) Play is as fast and as intense as we can muster with our voices and brainpower. It rarely touches on the abilities of the characters. More often play is tactical and decision making. It is tightly designed and reminiscent of the old Avalon Hill wargames. There is also a lot of in character discussion. We have had multiple 15+ round combats in single 6 hour sessions with hours of time left for more play. Now we have reached 11 players the combat length has extended some, but pacing hasn't slowed. 

Both of the games are very good and run excellently. Both do their own thing well. But having played many many different systems myself, it's apparent they are also wildly divergent. Yet they are both D&D. 

Go figure.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> In our rules light game it takes us less than 30 seconds without a computer. (practically nothing with one). This includes equipment purchasing and background.




I'm not entirely sure what manner of character background I could come up with in 30s ... If I tried, I'd imagine it would sound an awful lot like an improv class prompt: "OK, your mother's a harlot, your father's a drunkard, and you've always wanted to study magic but never had the money to do so.  Go!"  :\


----------



## Staffan

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I'll refrain form the classic C&C/D&D 3.X and instead go for my favorite, the d6 SW vs d20 SW for an example.
> 
> I can create a non-jedi PC in d20 in 5 minutes. Any level. A jedi takes 10-15. I cannot create any character in d6 under 15 min, despite having alot less steps to go through.



I don't have much, if any, experience with SWd20, but I find it hard to believe that it would take less time to make a character than "Choose a template, split up 7D worth of skills, and make up a name."



> While d6 is a lighter system (one mechanic, etc) combat takes ungodly long. Roll to hit. Roll to dodge. Compare rolls to find how hit you are. Roll damage. Soak damage. Repeat. d20? Roll to hit. Compare d20 roll + mods to Defense. Roll damage. Subtract from vitality/wound. Repeat.



In D6, you roll Dodge once per round, not per attack. So that takes slightly longer, but not that much longer. And you don't have lots of hp, so fights tend to be over sooner for that reason.



> Can I swing across a chasm with a princess in my arms while dodging blaster fire?



That one's a poor example, since it's spelled out in the rules: "Swinging across a shaft in the Death Star on a rope with a princess in your arms" is the example used for a Difficult (16-20) climbing/jumping roll. Since you're dodging at the same time, you get -1D to your skill (for performing multiple actions).


----------



## ThirdWizard

Turanil said:
			
		

> What you want is a sense of verisimilitude that RH gives more than RL. However, RL doesn't mean there is no spot check involved to see the thief coming. For me rule-lite is about less calculations of squares, movement, bonus of this because of that, etc. Now in the RL system the assassin makes a stealth roll and the victim a detect roll all the same. And if the DM decides to kill the PC anyway, he uses potions of invisiblity, min-max the assassin and what not. Much more work, but in the end it's the DM who decides. A bad DM is bad whatever the rules, but a RH may give a sense of more structured play at the expense of speed.





I'm saying that the rules-lite system makes me fiat the game more than I would like. If there is no resoultion system for a particular scenario, then the system has forced the GM to railroad the PCs whether he wants to or not. He can say that they get a 50/50 chance to see the assassin, but still, that's fiat. In D&D, you will build the rogue/assassin, determine ranks in Move Silently, the PCs will have ranks in Listen if they put points in it, they can cast spells like _see invisibility_, and personally, I find this more enjoyable than a simple 50/50 chance of hearing the assassin (or whatever I decide that day).


----------



## Staffan

buzz said:
			
		

> Well, they recreated ther hottest-selling campiagn setting and novel series, Dragonlance, as a rules-liteish RPG called SAGA, and we all know what a huge success that was.



Dragonlance was by no means a "hottest-selling" campaign setting, which is probably why it was cancelled before they turned it into SAGA.


----------



## howandwhy99

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I'm not entirely sure what manner of character background I could come up with in 30s ... If I tried, I'd imagine it would sound an awful lot like an improv class prompt: "OK, your mother's a harlot, your father's a drunkard, and you've always wanted to study magic but never had the money to do so. Go!" :\




Roll a percentile for me... 

EDIT: Or pick or make your own.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Beginning characters don't have a background.  Background and story is what you have when you are 10th level looking back on your adventure career.


----------



## ThirdWizard

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Beginning characters don't have a background.




They certainly do in my campaign! Interesting ones, too. A dwarf paladin I was working on for a campaign lived half his life in an orc prison-camp mining ore and trying to keep his fellow prisoners alive, leaving him middle aged if this campaign ever begins (I'm DMing at the moment). I havn't seen a farmboy who picks up a sword to go find fame and fortune... ever.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Beginning characters don't have a background.  Background and story is what you have when you are 10th level looking back on your adventure career.



 ...since when is background only adventuring experience?


----------



## Ashardalon

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I havn't seen a farmboy who picks up a sword to go find fame and fortune... ever.



In my opinion, even that would be a background. A simple one, but still a background.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Beginning characters (1st level) in (A)D&D are peons.  Their story is when they are higher level and look back on their exploits.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

howandwhy99 said:
			
		

> Roll a percentile for me...
> 
> EDIT: Or pick or make your own.




22.  

You actually have a percentile table for character backgrounds?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Beginning characters (1st level) in (A)D&D are peons.  Their story is when they are higher level and look back on their exploits.



 Yes, but please tell me they still have backgrounds. Things like being born at a previous time, etc. As far as I know, that still counts as background.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Beginning characters (1st level) in (A)D&D are peons.  Their story is when they are higher level and look back on their exploits.




No, by definition, 0-level NPCs in (A)D&D are peons.

The 1st-level PC types are special - and there's a reason behind why they're special.  Or do 1st-level Wizards spring from the womb in your games?


----------



## ThirdWizard

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Beginning characters (1st level) in (A)D&D are peons. Their story is when they are higher level and look back on their exploits.




No parents. No friends. No home town. They jump out of a pod at age 18 as a 1st level character and begin their lives. Oh wait, even that would be a background...


----------



## Gentlegamer

Yes, obviously they don't spontaneously come into existence.  They were born at a previous time, as you note.  Aside from that, they forge their story during in game adventure.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Yes, obviously they don't spontaneously come into existence.  They were born at a previous time, as you note.




And the manner in which they got from their _in utero_ beginnings to the tavern where a mysterious man offers them gold to fetch the Foozle (  ) is what is generally referred to as "background" - at least among those who care about such things as imaginitive characters, which exist beyond a set of numbers on a character sheet detailing how they interact with the rules.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Yes, obviously they don't spontaneously come into existence.  They were born at a previous time, as you note.  Aside from that, they forge their story during in game adventure.



 Okay...now how is this different than other editions? Heck, how is it different from other class based games?

I honestly don't see what you're trying to say.


----------



## Gentlegamer

I'll spell it out:  time should not be wasted coming up with elaborate backgrounds for beginning characters.  Let the background be developed in game.  If events prior to adventuring are important, let them be detailed later, in game, if they are relevant.

All this goes to speed of character creation.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> I'll spell it out:  time should not be wasted coming up with elaborate backgrounds for beginning characters.




I'll spell it out for you:  Time should be spent making absolutely certain your character isn't just a set of numbers, because that's *using your imagination* and *roleplaying*.

It also helps to ensure that you've got a *coherent party*.

Maybe this is why you have problems with the 3.X character creation system, where you end up with half-dragon pixie paladins adventuring with vampiric troll bezerkers and a human rogue.  None of your games have any background, so you end up with whatever random stuff walked into the tavern on that particular night.


----------



## ThirdWizard

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> All this goes to speed of character creation.




Sounds boring. :\

I'd rather spend an hour having fun with character creation than spend 30 seconds making what I would consider a boring character. Character creation is part of the fun.


----------



## Gentlegamer

I prefer my imagination and roleplaying as a player character to be done IN GAME, not pre game as I sit and write some epic about my dinky 1st level character.  IN GAME characterization and events forge a COMMON BOND among PCs.  I have found extensive PRE GAME BACKSTORY makes each player have a bloated sense of SELF IMPORTANCE to the "STORY." 

When I DM, my campaign has plenty of background without 1st level snot nose adventures having each their own pregame epic attached to them.  Their stories are forged in game, and are grown "organically" through play.


----------



## Gentlegamer

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Sounds boring. :\
> 
> I'd rather spend an hour having fun with character creation than spend 30 seconds making what I would consider a boring character. Character creation is part of the fun.



I guess I'm far more comfortable on the fly as both a player and DM than you are.


----------



## ThirdWizard

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> I guess I'm far more comfortable on the fly as both a player and DM than you are.




Of course! You're better than me. Why didn't I see it before. Thank you for opening my eyes and showing me how to have rightfun instead of my wrongfun I was having before.


----------



## Ry

buzz said:
			
		

> From Mike Mearls' blog:




From experience with both kinds of systems, this is utter garbage.  Who are the players in the test group?  In my experience, the rules light systems I've run don't HAVE disputes - but D&D does cause them because of the complexity.


----------



## ThirdWizard

rycanada said:
			
		

> From experience with both kinds of systems, this is utter garbage. Who are the players in the test group? In my experience, the rules light systems I've run don't HAVE disputes - but D&D does cause them because of the complexity.




Obviously, a rules heavy system is going to be more of a burden than a boon unless the participants know the rules. That's part of the point, if you don't know the rules, then it isn't going to work.


----------



## BryonD

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> I prefer my imagination and roleplaying as a player character to be done IN GAME, not pre game as I sit and write some epic about my dinky 1st level character.




I think we may have a difference in opinion as to when IN GAME starts...


----------



## Gentlegamer

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Of course! You're better than me. Why didn't I see it before. Thank you for opening my eyes and showing me how to have rightfun instead of my wrongfun I was having before.



Finally, you get it!   

It is also a pratical consideration.  1st level characters can be notoriously short lived.  Too often a party is "crafted" with certain backgrounds in mind, and then BAM! one of them dies, throwing off the whole "story" dynamic, or what have you.  Also, extensive pregame backgrounds tend to give players big heads and lead to "selfish" game play where (A)D&D is a "team" game.  

When DMing, I'd rather have PCs dive into the game.  This is particularly true for those who have never played a RPG before, or are not experienced in the Fantasy genre.

As a player, I'm not worried about background one bit.  My character is there to create his "story" . . . or die trying!


----------



## Breakdaddy

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Cool.  Say, I created some d20 SW Starship Control sheets.  I'd appreciate whatever input you might have regarding them!
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=138755
> .




So I downloaded your sheets, and I really like the layout. Ill give them a shot next game, but I don't see where they will do anything but help me keep things running quickly and smoothly. Thanks for sharing em!

In answer to your other comments; you are correct in your statement that some of the rules-lite guys smacked on Dancey a little bit and it has no bearing on the actual facts. I didnt mean to imply that the statement was false. However, your statements could be construed as blanket dismissiveness against the rules-lite people, giving the perception that they should be marginalized because their position differs from yours. Either way, it doesnt kill my dog, so thanks for the SWD20 resource.


----------



## BluSponge

mearls said:
			
		

> Here's a simple test:
> 
> Name a "rules lite" RPG that remained in print and actively supported by a publisher for more than 5 years.




Unless your definition of rules lite is considerably different from mine, Vampire: the Masquarade (and all subsequent WoD spin offs).  WoD is pretty rules lite all things considered.  The books are more about fluff than rules.

I say that, and I don't even like the game.  

Tom


----------



## BluSponge

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> In a rules heavy game the PCs get spot checks to see the sneaking assassin.
> 
> In rules-lite games the DM tells the PCs whether or not the PCs see the sneaking assassin.
> 
> If you can't tell the difference, then there isn't much I can do to explain it further.
> 
> EDIT: This is a generality, the exact example isn't the point. The resolution system is the point.




And its a poor one at that.

Most rules lite games call for die rolls or tests only when the action is difficult in nature.  So you wouldn't make a die roll to notice that the farmer is milking a black cow.  But a sneaking assassin would definitely require a (likely opposed) test.  At least that's been the case with EVERY rules light game I've played/read (Over the Edge, Talislanta, SAGA, R.I.P., etc.).

Tom


----------



## The Sigil

(Without reading the rest of the thread)


			
				mearls said:
			
		

> Here's a simple test:
> 
> Name a "rules lite" RPG that remained in print and actively supported by a publisher for more than 5 years.



oD&D *immediately* jumps to mind.  You remember, the one that eventually morphed into the Basic/Expert/Companion/Master/Immortal Boxed Sets and upon which most D&Ders cut their teeth?

First printing: 1977
Nineteenth printing: 1999

http://www.acaeum.com/DDIndexes/SetPages/Basic.html

*22 years* is a pretty significant run, no? 

How about Tunnels & Trolls? (1975 - "early 80s")

I guess it depends on your vision of "rules lite" but to me, oD&D was pretty doggone rules-lite.

--The Sigil


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> So I downloaded your sheets, and I really like the layout. Ill give them a shot next game, but I don't see where they will do anything but *help me keep things running quickly and smoothly.* Thanks for sharing em!




That was the plan - my major complaint with the StarWars d20 rulebook is that the rules for performing various actions are spread throughout a *ridiculous* number of pages.  Each force skill's applications are in the individual skill's description, which can be found anywhere between pages 76 and 100.  The rules on speed modifiers to attack rolls are on 218, while those for range are on 214, and flying defensively is on page 211.

I hoped that, by getting everything in one place in an easily locatable and trackable format, questions like "Wait - how fast are we going, and how does that affect my attack rolls?" will come up less often.

If you've got any further comments - pro, con, constructive criticism, etc. - I'd appreciate the feedback in the thread I linked to.


----------



## BluSponge

Mythmere1 said:
			
		

> Wow, what a bizarre assertion...was Mr. Dancey using humans or lab rats in his experiment?
> Anyone who thinks Savage Worlds or Castles & Crusades don't play faster or create characters faster is using some weird control group.




To be fair, C&C and SW are more rules medium games.

It doesn't make the statement any less perplexing.

Tom


----------



## MerricB

The Sigil said:
			
		

> (Without reading the rest of the thread)
> oD&D *immediately* jumps to mind.  You remember, the one that eventually morphed into the Basic/Expert/Companion/Master/Immortal Boxed Sets and upon which most D&Ders cut their teeth?
> 
> First printing: 1977
> Nineteenth printing: 1999
> 
> http://www.acaeum.com/DDIndexes/SetPages/Basic.html
> 
> *22 years* is a pretty significant run, no?




oD&D was possibly rules-light. (It certainly was confusing and incomplete). The Basic D&D line was _certainly_ not rules-light once Companion and Master came along.


----------



## MerricB

mearls said:
			
		

> Here's a simple test:
> 
> Name a "rules lite" RPG that remained in print and actively supported by a publisher for more than 5 years.
> 
> I think only Amber (a completely genius design, BTW) meets this criteria.




Err... one supplement that came out extremely late (Shadow Knight), and some subscription-only books isn't exactly setting the world on fire.

I love Amber, but the support I witnessed was very light indeed.

Cheers!


----------



## buzz

Staffan said:
			
		

> Dragonlance was by no means a "hottest-selling" campaign setting, which is probably why it was cancelled before they turned it into SAGA.



I call total BS on this. DL started the current trend of setting/novel cross-selling, and the books routinely make the NYT best-seller list. Brand city.


----------



## BluSponge

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I'd rather have a consistant, if heavier, ruled game than trust that my GM will come up with a fair and consistant ruling for such ad hoc options.




Let me turn that around on you.  One of the most frusterating experiences I had as a GM (in an RPGA event, no less) was trying to run a chase scene between the party and a halfling wererat in the middle of an orchard.  While I'm describing the little bugger darting in and out between the trees at a full run, I was immediately corrected that no, he had to run in a straight line.  Once he'd reached the end of his full move, THEN he could turn, but not before.

Naturally, the PCs caught him in one round and laid him out.  So much for drama.

Didn't ruin my game, but it's a good example of how rules can just as easily become a straight jacket (especially in RPGA games, where rule #0 is a big no no!).



> Want my proof? My players NEVER tried to grapple, bull-rush or trip in combat until 3e rolled along.




That just shows a lack of out-of-the-box thinking on the part of your players.

Another pull-your-hair-out moment from the RPGA:

I'm helping run a big battle royale between squads of humanoids and groups of players (about 20 groups of 6, IIRC).  I came across this one group.  An ogre had them pinned down and was making quick work of them.  All the while, hiding beneath a cart in the midst of the battle is a halfling thief (being played by a young kid, maybe 13-14).  I watch the scene for a few minutes and then suggest the kid have his character hampstring the ogre (who was standing right there -- would have been an easy mark).  

"I can't," says the kid.  "I don't have that feat."

You can do any of these things in any rules lite game.  You describe what you want to do, the GM sets the target number, and then describes the result if you succeed.  I don't see what's so hard to grasp about that.

Tom


----------



## Staffan

buzz said:
			
		

> I call total BS on this. DL started the current trend of setting/novel cross-selling, and the books routinely make the NYT best-seller list. Brand city.



The novels sold (and sell) well. The game stuff didn't.

I remember reading comments from Steve Miller (who was pretty involved in the whole SAGA thing) to the effect that the series of events at TSR went something like this: 1. Dragonlance is cancelled as a campaign setting. 2. Some people at TSR make a rules-light story-focused game they call SAGA. 3. Someone says, "Hey, no-one's using Dragonlance, so why don't we use that as the setting for this game?".


----------



## ColonelHardisson

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> Something I don't get, which may just be my own perspective getting in the way, is why rules-light games are perceived as "Cops & Robbers".




Probably for the same basic reason that rules-light fans assert that all rules-heavy games stifle creativity and encourage munchkinism, are not fun, are not the "true" game, etc. etc.. Basically, it's an inability to recognize that one's own opinion is not a universal truth.


----------



## BryonD

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Probably for the same basic reason that rules-light fans assert that all rules-heavy games stifle creativity and encourage munchkinism, are not fun, are not the "true" game, etc. etc.. Basically, it's an inability to recognize that one's own opinion is not a universal truth.




Can't really agree with you on this one.
I don't offer any challenge to the preference to rule lights vs rules heavy.
It comes down to the frequency of arbitrary judgements.
Where one prefers to be on the scale of frequency is certainly an opinion with no right or wrong.
But where a given ruleset falls on the scale has much less to do with opinion.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> In my experience, "rules heavy" actually limits your options by setting the parameters of how you as a player (and GM) conceptualize your in game actions.




In my experience, it doesn't. 

So much for arguments based on anecdotal evidence.


----------



## ThirdWizard

BluSponge said:
			
		

> And its a poor one at that.
> 
> Most rules lite games call for die rolls or tests only when the action is difficult in nature. So you wouldn't make a die roll to notice that the farmer is milking a black cow. But a sneaking assassin would definitely require a (likely opposed) test. At least that's been the case with EVERY rules light game I've played/read (Over the Edge, Talislanta, SAGA, R.I.P., etc.).
> 
> Tom




Yes, even FUDGE has stealth options (though on opposed rolls); replace it with sundering items rules, jumping rules, lifting and carrying rules, creation of magical items rules, etc etc etc. Basically even though I said it is just an out there example to illustrate a point, you latched onto the example itself, which completely overlooks my point.

My point: Rules-lite systems use more GM fiat than rules-heavy systems. Yes, that's it. Check out who I was replying to.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

BryonD said:
			
		

> Can't really agree with you on this one.
> I don't offer any challenge to the preference to rule lights vs rules heavy.
> It comes down to the frequency of arbitrary judgements.
> Where one prefers to be on the scale of frequency is certainly an opinion with no right or wrong.
> But where a given ruleset falls on the scale has much less to do with opinion.




I'm not sure what that has to do with my assertion that rules-light and rules-heavy fans simply don't see that their opinions are subjective truths valid for them, but not for everyone. One side says "your game sucks, because rules-light is no fun!" while the other side says "no, your game sucks, because rules-heavy is no fun!" No one can assert what is or isn't fun for someone else. That's my point.


----------



## ThirdWizard

BryonD said:
			
		

> Can't really agree with you on this one.
> I don't offer any challenge to the preference to rule lights vs rules heavy.
> It comes down to the frequency of arbitrary judgements.
> Where one prefers to be on the scale of frequency is certainly an opinion with no right or wrong.
> But where a given ruleset falls on the scale has much less to do with opinion.




I don't understand the point you are trying to make. You say you are disagreeing, but I don't follow what you said in disagreement... It sounds something like, "Because you can stay in the bounds of the rules in a rules-heavy system more often (since they cover more) then you arn't being as freeform as in a rules-lite system. This is because less rules are defined in the rules-lite so you have to break out of the box more." But, what I don't understand is that if you end up doing the same thing, to me that seems irrelevant.


----------



## BryonD

BluSponge said:
			
		

> You can do any of these things in any rules lite game.  You describe what you want to do, the GM sets the target number, and then describes the result if you succeed.  I don't see what's so hard to grasp about that.
> 
> Tom




First, I'd claim that both your examples have a lot more to do with the rigidity of RPGA more than anything else.  Particularly the first, the second is more a matter of a player getting hung up on semantics.....

But further, while this thread has gone to fast for me to even bother trying to read every post, I don't see that anyone is having a hard time grasping you point.  However, if the GM doesn't have a rule for setting the target number then you will result in inconsistent rulings, which are unsatisfying and can, in many people's experience, lead to disputes that are at least as disruptive as getting hung up on rules.  And again, if you do rule consistently, then that is simply a rule that hasn't been put on paper.  If you got the rules, then it isn't rules lite.


----------



## BryonD

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what that has to do with my assertion that rules-light and rules-heavy fans simply don't see that their opinions are subjective truths valid for them, but not for everyone. One side says "your game sucks, because rules-light is no fun!" while the other side says "no, your game sucks, because rules-heavy is no fun!" No one can assert what is or isn't fun for someone else. That's my point.




Fair enough.  But I consider rule light to be comparable to cops and robbers (the point you were referencing) without that implying any direct quality judgement.  
Saying rules light = cops and robbers is not, to me, at all the same as saying rules lite is bad.


----------



## BryonD

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I don't understand the point you are trying to make. You say you are disagreeing, but I don't follow what you said in disagreement... It sounds something like, "Because you can stay in the bounds of the rules in a rules-heavy system more often (since they cover more) then you arn't being as freeform as in a rules-lite system. This is because less rules are defined in the rules-lite so you have to break out of the box more." But, what I don't understand is that if you end up doing the same thing, to me that seems irrelevant.




I don't understand how you translated my quote into yours.

But all I was saying is that cops and robbers requires frequent unruled judgements and rules lite requires frequent unrules judgements.  Rules heavy games require these judgements less frequently.

Therefore rule light is MORE like cops and robbers than rules heavy is, in a way that has nothing to do with opinion or preference.  Thus saying rule lite is like cops and robbers is not necessarily a "you game sucks" comment.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

BryonD said:
			
		

> Fair enough.  But I consider rule light to be comparable to cops and robbers (the point you were referencing) without that implying any direct quality judgement.
> Saying rules light = cops and robbers is not, to me, at all the same as saying rules lite is bad.




Agreed. I wasn't making a quality judgement, simply observing that proponents of one side or the other assert, or at least strongly imply, that something has to be inherently better because _they_ like it. I like rules-heavy. I don't care how much someone tries to prove that it is inferior to rules-light (or vice-versa), I'm still gonna like it better. Some like rules-light. That's great. Trying to browbeat me into liking rules-light more just ain't gonna work, though, no matter how much "evidence" is presented that somehow "proves" it is better. The same goes for the reverse; I'm not gonna sit and proselytize about how my favorite way of playing is superior - I do vigorously argue that both ways of playing are equal, in that people have fun at playing both.


----------



## BryonD

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Agreed. I wasn't making a quality judgement, simply observing that proponents of one side or the other assert, or at least strongly imply, that something has to be inherently better because _they_ like it. I like rules-heavy. I don't care how much someone tries to prove that it is inferior to rules-light (or vice-versa), I'm still gonna like it better. Some like rules-light. That's great. Trying to browbeat me into liking rules-light more just ain't gonna work, though, no matter how much "evidence" is presented that somehow "proves" it is better. The same goes for the reverse; I'm not gonna sit and proselytize about how my favorite way of playing is superior - I do vigorously argue that both ways of playing are equal, in that people have fun at playing both.




Agreed.


----------



## ThirdWizard

BryonD said:
			
		

> I don't understand how you translated my quote into yours.
> 
> But all I was saying is that cops and robbers requires frequent unruled judgements and rules lite requires frequent unrules judgements. Rules heavy games require these judgements less frequently.
> 
> Therefore rule light is MORE like cops and robbers than rules heavy is, in a way that has nothing to do with opinion or preference. Thus saying rule lite is like cops and robbers is not necessarily a "you game sucks" comment.




Gotcha, arbitraryness of a system isn't subjective.


----------



## Mythmere1

BluSponge said:
			
		

> To be fair, C&C and SW are more rules medium games.
> 
> It doesn't make the statement any less perplexing.
> 
> Tom




True - I only meant relative to 3e that C&C is rules lite.  Even at rules-medium, it confounds the assertion that's being made ...


----------



## Prince of Happiness

Just to add a couple cents in here:

As a player, rules-heavy or rules-light, it doesn't matter: I'm still going to whup some ass or die trying (my V:tM character excepted. He's just weird).

As a GM...still didn't make any difference, it just mattered in the time I cared to put into making a mid-level badguy in one system vs. 3.5. The real problem came when my creativity well hits dry spots or I just get distracted by other things...taking the time to come up with the appropriate feats, skill points, etc felt too onerous, so I ended up by defaulting and making some villains rather "rules-light" anyways. Didn't matter, nobody cottoned on anyways.

Rules-heavy systems do not protect any more from DM fiat than have rules-light systems prevented munchkinism in my experience. Any time I've gamed with a bad DM with any kind of a rules-system, and I try to call them out on some rule that they were flagrantly using to screw us with, the DM would still pull "RULE ZERO, DUR-HUR-HUR-HUR!!!" So much for Protection from DM Fiat. I eventually learned to cast Protection from DM Fiat 10' Radius and I was ok.


----------



## Akrasia

buzz said:
			
		

> A gap maybe, but not a hole.
> 
> Thing is _Buffy_ isn't 256pp of rules. It's rules, setting info, season 1-5 synopsis, writeups of the major characters, sample archetypes, GM advice, complete sample adventure, guide to Buffyspeak, creatures and villains, conversion notes for _Witchcraft_, reference sheets, some fiction, and lots of art. C&C is all rules (or far more rules in comparison). _Buffy_ may not be RISUS, but it sure sits a lot closer to it than C&C.
> ...




IME C&C is just as 'light' as Buffy (I play and like both games).

The C&C PHB is 128 pages -- 60+ of which are merely spell descriptions.  Another 20+ is fluff text.  The M&T is just filled with ... monsters and treasures.

The actual *rules* of C&C take up only 20-30 pages.  It might not be a bona fide 'rules light' system -- but it is just as light as BtVS IMO.


----------



## Psion

BluSponge said:
			
		

> That just shows a lack of out-of-the-box thinking on the part of your players.




Folks, is slamming people you don't even know really necessary?


----------



## Akrasia

mearls said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> The question becomes, which game is worth the time it takes to study and learn? They both take some amount of time. The more complex game probably takes more time, but it's also more rewarding in that you have more tools in your kit to deal with the game. ...




Huh. :\

This claim demonstrates a *failure* to understand the whole point behind 'rule light' systems IMO -- viz. a good 'rules light' system does not require 'tools' (i.e. additional rules) in order to introduce novel and interesting new situations/encounters in the game.

Case in point: Buffy RPG is much 'lighter' than d20 Modern (I will leave aside the tiresome question of whether Buffy is a bona fide 'rules light' game), yet IME can accommodate as many situations and plots as d20 Modern (if not more).  It can do this with far less 'crunch'/rules.


----------



## Akrasia

The Sigil said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> How about Tunnels & Trolls? (1975 - "early 80s")
> ...




Actually, I don't think T&T ever really went out of print.

I *know* a new version is about to be released.

So, yeah, T&T is a good counter-example.


----------



## The Shaman

I'm afraid I have to say that I'm on-board with those who question the validity of Mr. Dancey's research methods. My first impression on reading the quote above is that a study population consisting entirely of twelve year-olds may tend to skew the results somewhat. :\ 

This is one of the key problems of corporate research: the results, and quite often the methods, are 'proprietary' and therefore there is no way to objectively examine the sampling methods and data analysis for rigor. Any claim to insight is, and should be treated as, highly suspect.

The point was made earlier, and bears repeating, that the entire subject of sales and market share as a measure of success ignores the fact that the rules-*bloated* 3e system benefits from decades of branding that the current rules did nothing to create. The question I would like to hear answered some time is this: would d20 have been as successful in terms of sales if it didn't come with the D&D brand name attached to the flagship product? What if there was no "3e" but rather "d20 Fantasy Roleplay" instead, without the D&D moniker? Would it occupy the same market segment that 3e D&D does?

That would be an interesting market research question actually: present 3e D&D and generic d20 "fantasy roleplaying" to a study population of novice gamers - how much does branding affect rules acceptance by new gamers?

Another issue affecting market share is the OGL - all those products out there, regardless of genre, that include the words "Requires the use of..." affect sales as well. If I purchased _Sidewinder: Wild West Adventures_ and the 3.0 core rulebook, am I really weighing in on the success of the d20 system or am I just buying a book I need to run a game, a game that doesn't require any of the rest of the rules-*bloated* 3e/d20 system?

On an entirely personal and subjective note, I'm switching to _C&C_ specifically because character creation is simpler and takes less time - I'd be happy to join a focus group to prove that, if Messrs. Dancey and Mearls are interested.


----------



## Campbell

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Huh. :\
> 
> This claim demonstrates a *failure* to understand the whole point behind 'rule light' systems IMO -- viz. a good 'rules light' system does not require 'tools' (i.e. additional rules) in order to introduce novel and interesting new situations/encounters in the game.




Your counterclaim also demonstrates a *failure* to understand the advantage of the tools that are available with a good rules heavy system. The ability to make stuff up is not an advantage that rules heavy systems hold a monopoly over. The advantage of a rules heavy system is that you do not *have* to make stuff up if you do not want to. It is relatively easy to simply discard rules that lessen the fun there is to be had during a game session. the advantage of a rules heavy system is that the rules are there if you need them to be there.

*Addendum
*I do not mean to be overly snarky here. Still my intentions were pure. Failing to draw the same conclusions from similar experiences does not neccesarily indicate myopic attitudes. I throughly see the point of rules light systems, I simply have not drawn the same conclusions as you have from the experience of playing and running rules light games. None of which invalidates either of our experiences. My distaste for running rules light games has nothing to do with a lack of vision, as I'm sure your distaste for running rules heavy games does not infer that you are mentally incapable of grasping some hidden truth. I do not feel constrained by D&D's rules, whereas you do feel constrained by them. Honestly, I am happy that you have chosen to the sort of game that is within your comfort zone as a GM.


----------



## Akrasia

Campbell said:
			
		

> Your counterclaim also demonstrates a *failure* to understand the advantage of the tools that are available with a good rules heavy system. The ability to make stuff up is not an advantage that rules heavy systems hold a monopoly over. The advantage of a rules heavy system is that you do not *have* to make stuff up if you do not want to. It is relatively easy to simply discard rules that lessen the fun there is to be had during a game session. the advantage of a rules heavy system is that the rules are there if you need them to be there.




Sorry, but you *failed* to understand my point.  

A good rules light system provides *all* the necessary rules the GM needs to model new and interesting situations.  This is because the rules in question are *more general* in nature.  A good rules light system does *not* require a GM to 'invent' new rules, because the general rules the game *does* have are adequate and flexible.

My example contrasting the BtVS game and d20 Modern stands.


----------



## scadgrad

The Shaman said:
			
		

> ...
> The point was made earlier, and bears repeating, that the entire subject of sales and market share as a measure of success ignores the fact that the rules-*bloated* 3e system benefits from decades of branding that the current rules did nothing to create. The question I would like to hear answered some time is this: would d20 have been as successful in terms of sales if it didn't come with the D&D brand name attached to the flagship product? What if there was no "3e" but rather "d20 Fantasy Roleplay" instead, without the D&D moniker? Would it occupy the same market segment that 3e D&D does? ...




Dear Lord, could is be that someone else on this board actually agrees that all of that branding effort had *as much or more*  to do with the success of 3.X as the asserted complexity of its rules? Shocking.



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> ...On an entirely personal and subjective note, I'm switching to _C&C_ specifically because character creation is simpler and takes less time - I'd be happy to join a focus group to prove that, if Messrs. Dancey and Mearls are interested.




For the record, I volunteer to DM/CK those sessions.



Welcome to the Crusade Shaman.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard

Akrasia said:
			
		

> A good rules light system provides *all* the necessary rules the GM needs to model new and interesting situations.  This is because the rules in question are *more general* in nature.  A good rules light system does *not* require a GM to 'invent' new rules, because the general rules the game *does* have are adequate and flexible.
> 
> My example contrasting the BtVS game and d20 Modern stands.




Interestingly enough, however, this not requiring of inventing rules I've found can be most easily seen in the rules heavy/bloated/more-so-than-some-other-games/whatever d20 rules.

If you don't know how to do something...GM decides on a DC based on its difficulty(and there's a chart in the DMG to help determine this. Roll d20 against it.

Easy as that. Its something I'd honestly expected from a rules-lite game rather than d20.

And for a completely different spin, would anyone else like to see a whole month(or maybe even two!) where we don't have to go through this whole rules lite/rules heavy system debate? Its always the same people on both sides and no opinions ever, ever change. Instead, they just get heated, angry, and closed.


----------



## BluSponge

Mythmere1 said:
			
		

> True - I only meant relative to 3e that C&C is rules lite.  Even at rules-medium, it confounds the assertion that's being made ...




True dat.  There are days when I think Rolemaster is rules lite compared to 3e.  But that's probably a little extreme on my part.  

Tom


----------



## Campbell

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Sorry, but you *failed* to understand my point.
> 
> A good rules light system provides *all* the necessary rules the GM needs to model new and interesting situations. This is because the rules in question are *more general* in nature. A good rules light system does *not* require a GM to 'invent' new rules, because the general rules the game *does* have are adequate and flexible.
> 
> My example contrasting the BtVS game and d20 Modern stands.




I did not fail to see your point. I am simply not impressed by it, nor do I see how this phenomenon is unique to good rules light systems. A good rules heavy system also retains a more general core that can be used to model new and interesting situations. It also includes additional tools that may be used to model complicated situations that come up during play. Rules heavy systems also allow GMs to present a more detailed simulation without having to remember how he or she handled the same situation last week. In fact most of the rules that I can find within the core rules are either extensions of existing principles, or exceptions that allow you to model situations that completely unified mechanics may not. Remove these elements, and you would have a good rules light system. There are of course some exceptions that need to die (Turning Undead and death at -10 hit points for instance).

While I admit rules light games do indeed play faster, they do not allow me to model both consistancy and detail. Some sacrifices are not worth it for everyone.


----------



## BluSponge

Psion said:
			
		

> Folks, is slamming people you don't even know really necessary?




Absolutely!  People who wear their hearts on their sleeves deserve to get bruised now and then.

KIDDING!  Sorry, but I didn't see my comment as a hard core slam. 

Now if I said, "Your mom doesn't think outside the box," I could see your point.  

Really, people.  

Tom


----------



## BluSponge

BryonD said:
			
		

> First, I'd claim that both your examples have a lot more to do with the rigidity of RPGA more than anything else.  Particularly the first, the second is more a matter of a player getting hung up on semantics.....




No doubt.  My issues with the RPGA are a large reason why I won't touch 3e as a GM anymore.  I'm happy to play, but that's as far as it goes.



> However, if the GM doesn't have a rule for setting the target number then you will result in inconsistent rulings, which are unsatisfying and can, in many people's experience, lead to disputes that are at least as disruptive as getting hung up on rules.  And again, if you do rule consistently, then that is simply a rule that hasn't been put on paper.  If you got the rules, then it isn't rules lite.




I see your point, but disagree.  Certainly a level of trust has to exist between the GM and players, and the GM has to strive for a certain level of consistancy.  You can't really hold the game system responsible for bad GMs -- they'll ruin a rules heavy game as quickly as a rules lite one.  In the end, it does all come down to a matter of personal taste.  I gravitate towards games that let me craft my campaign in a manner that suits me, as I'm sure others do.  What I find constrictive, I'm sure others find liberating.

But the complaints I'm hearing from most people around here have to do with bad GMing, not bad game mechanics.

Tom


----------



## Al'Kelhar

Meanwhile, back in the Real World, there is a large amount of research going on about the relative merits of regulating complex subjects to achieve maximum social benefit through the application of high-level principles rather than micro-regulating specific behaviours.  This represents very well the dichotomy of "rules-lite" and "rules-heavy" gaming systems; which in truth is not a dichotomy but a continuum between extremes.  "Rules-lite" or "principles-based" regulation of a subject is more efficient and effective at achieving the desired social outcome than "rules-heavy" or specific behaviour regulation where:
- the regulated entities are willing to take responsibility and exercise professional judgement in their compliance with the rules;
- there is mutual trust and respect between the regulator and the regulated entities;
- there is a willingness by the regulator and the regulated entities to build a shared understanding of how the rules apply in practice.

The measure of success of a principles-based ("rules-lite") system of regulation is the consistency of the views of the regulator and regulated entities about how a given principle will apply in a particular factual circumstance.

I suspect this is at the heart of why some people prefer rules-lite games to rules-heavy games and vice-versa.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar


----------



## James Heard

Al'Kelhar said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, back in the Real World, there is a large amount of research going on about the relative merits of regulating complex subjects to achieve maximum social benefit



Thats exactly what I was thinking when I read it too. Some systems (any system, not just roleplaying games) can work without clear rules and procedures thanks to artful management (or GMing) but in the absence of that art they fall flat. And a lot of people mistake themselves when they state things like "I don't want people telling me what to do" or mistake their own expertness when applying knowledge they're familiar with to people completely unfamiliar with a subject.

To put it another way, I don't need clear instructions on how to do basic math but I might need clear instructions on how to perform brain surgery. Just because a bunch of brain surgeons don't want people telling them how to do cuts and clearly understand the implications of sawing into someone's noggin doesn't mean that the man on the street that you're supposed to be teaching brain surgery to does. I assume we're all more than a little familiar with roleplaying just by our presence here on the boards, but my not-quite-teenaged daughter marvelled at me when she was starting her very first roleplaying experience (in a game I'd never played before) and I was able to provide "expert assistance" on her game _without even reading the rules._ Most of us have more than a little bit of training in the "artful management" side of GMing and tons of experience with the basics of roleplaying games, I'd venture that everyone here would need precise instructions on how to assemble death rayguns even if a bunch of dudes well familiar with death rayguns said that "rules lite" instructions were fine for assembling antimatter powerpacks.

And really, some people just like less instruction and less rules in everything - and they _look_ for artful management in all things rather than what might be seen as arbitrary restrictions. Once everyone knows what they're doing, there's nothing wrong with that - I'd be interested in a study with children though, on rules lite system morphing compared with rules heavy system compatibility. I know for a fact I stopped playing VtM because half the time the rules changed because of bad weather and car trouble, or astounding things could be accomplished with similar die rolls and a little bit of cleavage.


----------



## Turanil

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I'm saying that the rules-lite system makes me fiat the game more than I would like. If there is no resoultion system for a particular scenario, then the system has forced the GM to railroad the PCs whether he wants to or not. He can say that they get a 50/50 chance to see the assassin, but still, that's fiat. In D&D, you will build the rogue/assassin, determine ranks in Move Silently, the PCs will have ranks in Listen if they put points in it, they can cast spells like _see invisibility_, and personally, I find this more enjoyable than a simple 50/50 chance of hearing the assassin (or whatever I decide that day).



My point of contention with you is not that RL is better than RH or vice-versa, my point is that the DM determines the adventure, and even if he must abide by a strict set of rules, he has control over the story, so it's DM's fiat the same, even if more subtle and within game mechanics. 

Despite you claim the contrary, in the rule heavy system it's still DM's fiat as whether the PC has 50% chance spotting the assassin: I am the DM, I know the PC has Listen and Spot at +15, so in giving the assassin Stealth at +15, the PC has 50% chance of detecting him. Simple as that and pure DM's fiat, and it has nothing to do between rule-light / rule-heavy. The only difference is that it was pre planned instead of improvised. So tell me about planned adventures versus winding the game; but that's another debate.

Otherwise I am like you, if the DM doesn't have a preexisting rule for something he will have to come up with an arbitrary decision, which is something I don't like too. 

In fact the real question is probably not rule-light vs rule heavy but system that allows a fast game vs system that makes for a slow game. And there I will just point out to my first post in this thread (page 1).


----------



## SweeneyTodd

Okay, maybe you guys can help me out here. I'll describe the mode of play in the rules-light session we played tonight, using a slight variant to Primetime Adventures. Hopefully I can get some feedback on this. (I fully expect "That's not a RPG" as one possible response, so I won't be offended.)

For reference, we played about two and a half hours (with an hour of social time and dinner before that, and a half hour of discussing future games after). We played eight to ten scenes and covered the half-dozen plot points outstanding from last session, as well as introducing several new ones.

Character sheets have a list of traits. In this game, they're usually exceptional skill or supernatural ability.

We go around the table. If it's your turn, you frame a scene, and state the conflict involved, and the stakes of that conflict. 

We play for a while as usual, mixing third-person narration with first-person dialog. Various players throw in additional material, either in-character (if they have a PC in the scene), or out of character suggestions.

We reach the crux of the conflict, and we roll. One die per party in the conflict, plus one die per relevant trait involved. Winner narrates the result (what happens) and we play out the remainder of the scene (how it happens). The narration should include things like the logical consequences of the actions, of course.

Finish scene, and cut to the next scene.

As far as realism and fairness go: 

Whether or not a trait is relevant to the conflict is adjudicated by the GM, but I've never had to say no. (Traits are broad, and winning a conflict through use of your Underwater Basket-weaving trait would require you to narrate how that happened, so it doesn't come up.) The rules cover all possible conflicts that could come up (albeit using the same mechanism in all cases). The players don't feel at the whim of GM fiat, because they have as many opportunities to narrate as I do.

Comments? Sound truly awful?  I fully recognize that we're not attempting to simulate anything, except perhaps the plot structure of a TV show or movie. (Scenes tend to build in importance, with some climactic scenes near the end of the session.) But for us, it's neither arbitrary nor unrealistic. 

I think what I'm finally realizing is how different my unstated assumptions for what a roleplaying game is than those of some other posters. It's probably a bigger issue than rules-light or rules-heavy.


----------



## ThirdWizard

Turanil said:
			
		

> My point of contention with you is not that RL is better than RH or vice-versa, my point is that the DM determines the adventure, and even if he must abide by a strict set of rules, he has control over the story, so it's DM's fiat the same, even if more subtle and within game mechanics.




Except that you're wrong. Just because I can game at a rules-heavy system does not mean that it uses the same amount of fiat at a rules lite game.

As an example, a PC turned to stone should weigh about 3x as much as they normally weigh. In a rules-heavy game you can look it up on a table to find out if the PCs can carry the character back to town. In a rules-lite system that doesn't have encumberance tables, the GM just decides based on how they feel at the time.

In D&D you can determine run speeds based on character race/class, encumberance, and feats taken. You can then cross reference these run speeds and make ability checks to see if you can catch the person trying to run away. In a rules-lite system without chasing rules, the GM will make up a rule or decide if the chasing is successful.

In D&D, you have a mechanic to see who goes first in a round. In a rules-lite system without this mechanic the GM has to make it up.

In D&D you know how long it is going to take to craft something based on the character's skill in Craft. In a rules-lite system without this mechanic the GM makes it up.

In D&D I know the resolution mechnic for sundering, grappling, tripping, disarming, overruning, bull rushing, and other modes of attack. In a rules-lite system the GM would make these things up.

Now tell me again that a rules-heavy system is made up of just as much GM fiat as a rules-lite system.


----------



## Campbell

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> Okay, maybe you guys can help me out here. I'll describe the mode of play in the rules-light session we played tonight, using a slight variant to Primetime Adventures. Hopefully I can get some feedback on this. (I fully expect "That's not a RPG" as one possible response, so I won't be offended.)
> 
> For reference, we played about two and a half hours (with an hour of social time and dinner before that, and a half hour of discussing future games after). We played eight to ten scenes and covered the half-dozen plot points outstanding from last session, as well as introducing several new ones.
> 
> Character sheets have a list of traits. In this game, they're usually exceptional skill or supernatural ability.
> 
> We go around the table. If it's your turn, you frame a scene, and state the conflict involved, and the stakes of that conflict.
> 
> We play for a while as usual, mixing third-person narration with first-person dialog. Various players throw in additional material, either in-character (if they have a PC in the scene), or out of character suggestions.
> 
> We reach the crux of the conflict, and we roll. One die per party in the conflict, plus one die per relevant trait involved. Winner narrates the result (what happens) and we play out the remainder of the scene (how it happens). The narration should include things like the logical consequences of the actions, of course.
> 
> Finish scene, and cut to the next scene.
> 
> As far as realism and fairness go:
> 
> Whether or not a trait is relevant to the conflict is adjudicated by the GM, but I've never had to say no. (Traits are broad, and winning a conflict through use of your Underwater Basket-weaving trait would require you to narrate how that happened, so it doesn't come up.) The rules cover all possible conflicts that could come up (albeit using the same mechanism in all cases). The players don't feel at the whim of GM fiat, because they have as many opportunities to narrate as I do.
> 
> Comments? Sound truly awful?  I fully recognize that we're not attempting to simulate anything, except perhaps the plot structure of a TV show or movie. (Scenes tend to build in importance, with some climactic scenes near the end of the session.) But for us, it's neither arbitrary nor unrealistic.
> 
> I think what I'm finally realizing is how different my unstated assumptions for what a roleplaying game is than those of some other posters. It's probably a bigger issue than rules-light or rules-heavy.




It sounds like a cool experience. I'd actually love to play in a game like that. It's generally not what I think of when I think about roleplaying games. I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable running that type of game however.


----------



## Akrasia

Campbell said:
			
		

> I did not fail to see your point. I am simply not impressed by it, nor do I see how this phenomenon is unique to good rules light systems.




Ummmm ... it's not, and I never claimed that it was.

My point was merely that a good rules light system doesn't *need* "new things for its toolkit".  By relying on a smaller number of more general rules, the tool kit is already complete.



			
				Campbell said:
			
		

> A good rules heavy system also retains a more general core that can be used to model new and interesting situations. It also includes additional tools that may be used to model complicated situations that come up during play.




Yes, whatever.  I was in no way disputing that.  My point was merely that a complete, good rules light system can cover *all* the same situations that a rules heavy system does, but simply with less detail.  


			
				Campbell said:
			
		

> Rules heavy systems also allow GMs to present a more detailed simulation without having to remember how he or she handled the same situation last week.




Okay, you're missing the point of 'rules light' systems here.  Rules light system are *not* 'simulationist' in nature, and people who want simulationist games are better off using rules heavy systems.

(Of course, the fact that we are talking about games for worlds in which barbarians clad in loinclothes fight giant flying lizards that breath fire makes the whole talk of 'realistic simulation' a bit strange IMO, but that is a different matter.)

In short: there is no problem with 'remembering how the situation was handled last week' with a rules light system because ... gasp ... the rules are LIGHT.  There is only a problem if you are trying to bend a rules light system into a simulationist mold.  But that is a silly thing to do.


			
				Campbell said:
			
		

> While I admit rules light games do indeed play faster, they do not allow me to model both consistancy and detail. Some sacrifices are not worth it for everyone.




Fine.  You have a different set of desiderata for your games that people who like rules light systems do.  Big surprise.

None of this invalidates my original point -- viz. that Mearls' comment that rules heavy systems give GMs more 'tools' for their 'kits' entirely misses the raison d'etre for rules light systems in the first place.


----------



## ThirdWizard

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> Okay, maybe you guys can help me out here. I'll describe the mode of play in the rules-light session we played tonight, using a slight variant to Primetime Adventures. Hopefully I can get some feedback on this. (I fully expect "That's not a RPG" as one possible response, so I won't be offended.)




Now this game is rules-lite! All you C&C people out there, take note. 
Sounds reminicent of FUDGE.

It's an RPG, you have PCs and a conflict resolution system.

I'm curious what genre you were playing.

I can't say its _totally _different than my experiences. I play in a rules-heavy system in which 75% the game is spent dice-less or near dice-less (usually running 6-8 hour sessions). Mostly roleplaying character interactions, building plot, introducing NPCs. 

It does sound very different in its narrative form, however, much more involving with the players outside the scope of their own PC. That's probably the largest difference. Now I see what you meant by handing over control of the gaming world to the players. That's way out of the bounds of traditional play, as far as I know.

I could probably play it once, but that would most likely be enough for me. And, I would think of it as a completely different experience to what I am used to in roleplaying. I would probably liken it more to back in Boy Scouts passing a single story around the campfire, where everyone got to add in something before passing it onto the next person. Fun, in itself, but not satisfying what I'm looking for in a roleplaying game every other week.


----------



## Campbell

Akrasia, 

I find it interesting that despite our obvious differences on this issue we can both appreciate Buffy/Angel, although probably from different vantage points. For instance, my appreciation for the game stems from my experiences with being quite able to run a fairly detailed simulation of the Buffyverse through the game. Specifically, I appreciate how Drama Points can be used to represent how seemingly average individuals adjust to the harsh reality of the Buffyverse. For me it's not about simulating any reasonable sort of model of reality. i want to simulate settings that hold together while allowing my players to create their own stories within the confines of those settings.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

ThirdWizard and others,

Hey, feedback! Thanks kindly.

The setting is something I devised from the setting creation rules in Sorcerer, by Ron Edwards. It's the modern day, in a small college town. The PCs are otherwise ordinary people (a professor, a bartender, and a bouncer who dreams of being a pro wrestler, among others. It sounds odd but it works) who control "demons" (basically djinii). These things give them supernatural powers, for various costs. They've alternated between dealing with their everyday lives (which now include avoiding being held for "study" by the government) with uncovering and dealing with the source of their powers.

We were running the system with Sorcerer, which is also rules-light but constructed much more like a traditional experience (pretty similar to the sessions you describe, actually). We've been adding player narration rights gradually, and finally decided to work with a system where they're explicitly part of the rules. (Basically, we were getting pretty close to "freeform with five dice rolls a sesion", and so I thought PTA would better suit our playstyle.)

I admit that we're pretty "out there", although interestingly enough we've been that way long before we adopted the system. I remember a time two years ago, in a different campaign using D20 Modern, when a player spent an Action Point on their Drive roll and I said, "Okay, you've cut off your pursuers and turned onto a side street. What's it like?" 

We've ranged from games with a traditional party structure to those with parallel and intersecting stories. (Heck, in this campaign, it was the fourth session before any of the PCs _met_.) We cut quickly between scenes and offer up NPCs for players to run to keep everyone engaged. (Several of those NPCs have become recurring semi-PCs.) We make no attempt to keep player knowledge separate from character knowledge, and interestingly enough the only way that ever gets used is to have a player arrange to have their character get into trouble, never out of it.

I can totally understand that this doesn't sound like most people's cup of tea, although I'd love to hear specifics on why. One argument I've heard is that it doesn't seem like player narration rights can coexist with tactical challenges. That's probably true, but it's not an emphasis for our group. Two of our players play weekly D&D, one as DM, so maybe they get that satisfaction elsewhere. Another argument is the unrealism, which as I totally failed to get across in my posts a few pages back, I think boils down to narration anyway. (If people aren't on the same page in how they imagine a scene, it'll feel "off" regardless of rules level.)

One more thing about the challenge, or "gaming" aspect: There's not a tactical challenge in engaging the rules per se, but there's certainly a challenge. You've got to maneuver your character into conflicts that allow them to use their traits, limit opposing traits, and come up with compelling actions that "grab" the group. (The latter's true because if you've presented a great idea, and someone else wins narration rights, they may decide you succeed with complications, instead of failing.) It's not crunchy, but it does leave us brain-fried after a few hours.


----------



## rabindranath72

mearls said:
			
		

> Here's a simple test:
> 
> Name a "rules lite" RPG that remained in print and actively supported by a publisher for more than 5 years.
> 
> I think only Amber (a completely genius design, BTW) meets this criteria.
> 
> In the current marketplace, I can't think of a single rules light game that's thriving. What I think is interesting, and this ties in Ryan's point that people *want* rules lite gaming to succeed, is that I suspect a lot of people think a game is rules lite when it's not.
> 
> What's even more interesting is that if you look at the industry over the past 30+ years, only rules heavy games have found and sustained audiences. Amber is perhaps the only exception I can think of (and again, that's a genius design).



Mr. Mearls,
first, let us put some hypthesis:
For "rules-lite" system I mean a system that:
1) allows me short preparation time for creating NPCs, "monsters" and encounters
2) allows fast character creation
3) does not need reference to volumes just to adjudicate an action so that players won't throw the books at your face
in the above, for "short" I mean a fuzzy definition which can be roughly translated in the order of tens of minutes, not going over the hour (or more as in The Other System).

THEN, given the above, I can cite at least four systems:
1) Silhouette by Dream Pod 9. A FAST, realistic system which is used for anything from fantasy to science fiction
2) Interlock by R. Talsorian (Cyberpunk, Mekton et al.)
3) Unisystem by Eden Studios
4) BRP by Chaosium (Cthulhu et al...I do not think I need say more)
5) Amber

So, as you can see, there are lots of rules lite systems which do not need 1 PHB, 2 DMG, N (for N large) Monster manuals, 1 Dummy Guide and what not.

Furthermore, please, pay attention when hosting people like Mr. Dancey who SEEM to talk about science and experiments without obviously knowing what they are speaking about. I speak from a professional viewpoint, being an Associate Researcher in Statistics. And what Mr. Dancey made to pass as an experiment, is, plainly put, ludicrous.

I understand that you both are on the payroll of WotC, but there is no need to say blatantly wrong things. You are free to say your opinion, but NOT to pass it for science.

Best regards,
Antonio Eleuteri


----------



## JohnSnow

Interesting interactive experience. I would certainly classify it as roleplaying. Obviously, it's incredibly "rules-light" and highly interactive.

I think the point here is that all this "rules-light," "rules-medium," "rules-heavy" stuff is a continuum where everyone's "sweet spot" is different. Clearly, some people prefer to handle their games in different ways. For myself, I can totally understand the desire of many people (especially GMs) to have a game that's easier to prepare. That makes all kinds of sense. Personally, I find that a dichotomy exists between "easy to prepare" and "customizable characters."

For the record, I do not consider _Castles & Crusades_ to be a truly "rules-light" system. I would rate it more on the level of "rules-simple." Like D&D, C&C has a relatively simple resolution mechanic. D&D has, over the years, accumulated a number of "situation-specific" rulings that were, with the publication of 3e, codified into the "official system." The official system has been tested to be "balanced" with all of those add-ons taken into account. I'm not sure the game is necessarily balanced if you start pulling things out, but I don't think you could balance the game for a lot fewer rules and then start adding things in without jeopardizing its "balance" either.

The points Ryan Dancey has been making since he advocated the OGL are primarily basic marketing ones. Now, since roleplaying games are a hobby, they don't necessarily follow the paradigm he's using, but it isn't fair to ignore his point completely. Any complicated system benefits, in the long-term, from what marketing people call "network effects." Basically, the theory runs like this: if everybody's got the same "interface," their experience is more portable. And the more people that use it, the more value it has to people. And the more value it has, the more people use it, and so on.

This means that there's a reduced learning curve _in the long run._ Rules-light vs. rules-heavy inadvertently treads on these network effect issues. If everyone's playing the same "rules-heavy" game, then the learning curve is drastically reduced _if you switch gaming groups._ If everyone's playing the same "rules-light" game, but each group has a pool of "house rules," then the network effects only apply to the rules-light aspect of the game. For the record, many games (like C&C) benefit from (and exist because of) the network effects created by Dancey's brainchild - the Open Gaming License.

And the simple fact is that the Core mechanic of the Open Gaming License is the same as the core mechanic of the Original D&D Game. That's why C&C can be published under the OGL and be recognizable as the original game. D&D's true genius (mechanics-wise) was always its combat resolution system. Skills were definitely a secondary consideration. The smart thing Wizards did when they made 3e was to standardize the d20 as THE conflict resolution mechanic for the game. They took the mechanics for combat resolution that made D&D so popular and applied them across the board. C&C actually copied that "univeral mechanic" from 3e (tweaked slightly - the SIEGE engine).

Where the Third Edition designers MAY have been overzealous is in their attempts to balance out EVERYTHING. It can fairly be argued that they could have left some things less defined. IMO, some of the weird "too far" mechanics include the rules for types of bonuses, stacking and so forth. The "character wealth by level" guidelines are another example. The designers took a perceived problem - Monty Haul characters - and decided to address it by stating what level of wealth was "reasonable." The net result was that the ramp-up of character's abilities became officially defined by their treasure. I don't regard any of these things as "core aspects" of third edition. They were more inadvertent side effects of attempts to address areas that caused a headache for some DMs.

And that is, I think, the key. How do you teach someone to be a good DM? That's a MAJOR "network effect" problem that confronts our hobby. To have more gamers, there need to be more gaming groups. More gaming groups means you need more GMs. So how can you teach someone to be a good GM? In a rules-light game, you can only give "guidelines." If you have to play with someone who's already good at it, and it require a certain amount of "native talent," there will only ever be so many gaming groups. That's a significant "barrier to entry" to anybody considering taking up our hobby.

However, in a rules-heavy game, you can point to the rules and say, "okay, this is what you need to do when you referee." That won't necessarily produce great GMs, but it does allow someone to make an attempt at being a fair and good GM without having to spend an apprenticeship gaming with Gary Gygax, Monte Cook or any other GM who already GETS it. So now we have GMs that can grasp the bare minimums and run a reasonably fair game, even if they still need practice to be really "good" at it. The roleplaying/narrator side is something that ONLY comes with practice, although obviously some people will have more natural talent than others. Obviously, an experienced Gamemaster can adjudicate the game fairly without resorting to extensive rules. But if an enjoyable game requires an experienced GM, then the limiting factor of the RPG hobby is not the availability of gaming materials...it's the availability of good-quality, experienced GMs. That's another issue where a single gaming system helps in the long-run - the more portable one's RPG experience is, the more likely it is that any given gaming group will be able to find/produce a qualified Gamemaster.

Obviously, no business model that says "our market size is dependent on the availability of a resource we can't control, produce or aid in the development of" is sustainable in the long-term. You can disagree with Dancey on specifics, and disagree with Mearls' assertions about how good D&D's game mechanics are, but they do have some very good solid points to make.


----------



## rabindranath72

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Except that you're wrong. Just because I can game at a rules-heavy system does not mean that it uses the same amount of fiat at a rules lite game.
> 
> As an example, a PC turned to stone should weigh about 3x as much as they normally weigh. In a rules-heavy game you can look it up on a table to find out if the PCs can carry the character back to town. In a rules-lite system that doesn't have encumberance tables, the GM just decides based on how they feel at the time.
> 
> In D&D you can determine run speeds based on character race/class, encumberance, and feats taken. You can then cross reference these run speeds and make ability checks to see if you can catch the person trying to run away. In a rules-lite system without chasing rules, the GM will make up a rule or decide if the chasing is successful.
> 
> In D&D, you have a mechanic to see who goes first in a round. In a rules-lite system without this mechanic the GM has to make it up.
> 
> In D&D you know how long it is going to take to craft something based on the character's skill in Craft. In a rules-lite system without this mechanic the GM makes it up.
> 
> In D&D I know the resolution mechnic for sundering, grappling, tripping, disarming, overruning, bull rushing, and other modes of attack. In a rules-lite system the GM would make these things up.
> 
> Now tell me again that a rules-heavy system is made up of just as much GM fiat as a rules-lite system.




The problem with all the above is that what the book tries to "enforce" as "the one true answer" may be wrong. An example?
You say: a PC turned to stone weighs 3x. 
This is not necessarily true. It depends on the density of the stone. A PC turned to volcanic rock would weigh much more than a PC turned to alabaster.
This is just a fact of reality.
You may (correctly) say that reality in a fantasy game does not matter much.
The obvious consequence of this being that the answer in the book is as good as the answer I may create on the spot.

The same argument can be repeated for all other matters. 
People often think that by using a more "simulationist" game system like 3e, what they get is something more similar to a real combat. 
I routinely stage medieval mock combats during celebrations in my country, which has a strong medieval tradition, and I assure you that all the *c*r*a*p* that we see in 3e combat is simply nonsense. True combat is FAST PACED, it is not an exercise in pointless square counting tactic, you do not have much time to think at what you are doing.
And trying to simulate such a reality is pointless since no system could introduce all the variables needed in a viable amount of time. So, why bother? Whether you move 3 or four "squares" is the same. What one can realistically do, instead, is to "simulate" the EXPERIENCE of combat, as a frantic, chaotic sequence of steps where you need split-second decisions to survive.

best regards,
Antonio Eleuteri


----------



## Turanil

I guess it's a case of speed versus pseudo-realism. 

So a PC is turned to stone, its weight multiplied by 3, making him and his gear a 600 lb. Others want to *carry the statue* back to town to have him being reverted to flesh:

-- Rule Lite Game:
I rule that a stone statue of 600 lb. is extremely heavy and encumbering, so carrying it among the three remaining PCs, who also have got a chest full of gold plus their plate mails and whatever, is almost impossible without a cart. I can say it immediately, and the game goes on. It's DM's fiat, but I am open to players' arguments anyway, as I know I am not omniscient, and open to suggestions. However, in this case it's easy to agree.

-- Rule Heavy Game:
I search through the book, make complex calculations and what not, and finally obtain the precision that the strongest character carrying the statue could walk at 1/5th base speed for 30 minutes maxi (then stop exhausted for 10 minutes, and each time thereafter being all the more exhausted, increasing the penalty to this or that), and the others at 1/6th their base speed for 15 minutes maxi. So what? Is the game hugely improved by this precision? I doubt it; however I admit that the heavy rulebook helps you win the argument against players who always try to abuse the rules and get an advantage over the DM with dishonest arguments. Personally I don't game with such players. I listen to their remarks, adjust when necessary and go on with the game.


----------



## The Shaman

Turanil said:
			
		

> Is the game hugely improved by this precision? I doubt it; however I admit that the heavy rulebook helps you win the argument against players who always try to abuse the rules and get an advantage over the DM with dishonest arguments.



Especially when swung vigorously against the side of the player's head.  

No, I am not advocating violence against players by GMs. At least not most players.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

> Originally Posted by Ryan Dancey
> I observed (2-way mirror) several groups who were given "rules lite" RPG systems as a part of an effort to understand how they were used and if the "liteness" was actually delivering any utility value. Using a stopwatch, we found that consistently zero time was saved in character creation, or adjudicating disputes. In fact, in some games, disputes lasted substantially longer because the GM could not just point to a written rule in a book and call the argument closed.
> 
> 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.





Bull.

I played a C&C game Tuesday night, the first session of the campaign.  One of the guys had to roll up a character, and he had never played the game before, nor had he seen the rulebook.  He was up and running in 10  minutes.  Another guy was late, but familiar with the game.  He had his character ready to play in 5 minutes.  

I also play in a 3e game on Thursday nights, and it takes an hour for someone to roll a new character when a pc dies.  Also, in the C&C game, combat seems to fly by and we got a LOT more accomplished than the 3e game does.  BTW, 3 of the 4 guys in the C&C game also play in the 3e game, so it's not a difference in the players.

I'm not saying rules light is better, but it's exponentially faster.

Ryan is entitled to his opinion, but I have to wonder, is it his opinion that the world is flat?


----------



## JRRNeiklot

> Originally Posted by Remathilis
> I'd rather have a consistant, if heavier, ruled game than trust that my GM will come up with a fair and consistant ruling for such ad hoc options. Want my proof? My players NEVER tried to grapple, bull-rush or trip in combat until 3e rolled along.





After 6 years of playing 3e, I have yet to see the above, either.


----------



## diaglo

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Ryan is entitled to his opinion, but I have to wonder, is it his opinion that the world is flat?




my guess is his opinion matches P.T. Barnum's.

There is one born every minute.

diaglo "examining what's behind the egress" Ooi


----------



## JRRNeiklot

This just in:

When ice cream sales escalate, so does violate crime, such as murder and rape.  Therefore, if you see someone eating ice cream, he's probably a rapist.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

der_kluge said:
			
		

> It seems to me that we have players advocating a more rules-heavy system, and GMs advocating a more rules-light approach.
> 
> Or am I misinterpreting things?
> 
> Ultimately, isn't that the holy grail?  Players can customize and have control over the game, and GMs can run a campaign without quitting their day job?





Not exactly, I both play and GM, and I prefer rules light as both a player and a gm; however, I will GM a C&C game, but never again a 3e game.  So, in my case, you're partially right.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

> Dear Lord, could is be that someone else on this board actually agrees that all of that branding effort had as much or more to do with the success of 3.X as the asserted complexity of its rules? Shocking.




I wonder how well 3e would have sold if it had been Gurps 4.0 or Rolemaster x.0 using the exact same ruleset?  My guess is not NEARLY as well.


----------



## fredramsey

Christ.

Had to read the rest of the thread this morning.

It actually managed to go further downhill.

Wow.


----------



## Turanil

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Especially when swung vigorously against the side of the player's head.



You mean fredramsey's?


----------



## Psion

BluSponge said:
			
		

> Absolutely!  People who wear their hearts on their sleeves deserve to get bruised now and then.
> 
> KIDDING!  Sorry, but I didn't see my comment as a hard core slam.
> 
> Now if I said, "Your mom doesn't think outside the box," I could see your point.
> 
> Really, people.




I'm not insulted (though I must say, if it were my players you were referring to, it might have been) so much as I think it's a totally bogus cop-out when it comes to defending a game.

Let me tell you a story. The title of this story is "Why Psion Doesn't Run Hero".

Psion loves Hero. Psion thinks that Hero is a way cool game. In some ways, he thinks it out-cools D&D. Why? Because it lets him craft anything and have rigorous mechanical support for it that he much prefers to ad hoccing everything.

But back in college, Psion had a group. There were many players in this group, but one of particular interest. We'll call him Rob. Because, well, that's his name.

Psion is running a rip-roaring game of hero, but find that Rob routinely avoids running characters that use magic. I soon discover that Rob does not use magic because he doesn't grok the power system. Well, Rob's a college student, so he should understand the basic math that goes into making a Hero character right?

I thought so, but it occurs to me that whether or not he's capable, that's work to him. It occurs to me that gaming being a leisure activity, it's not my place to make him do things he doesn't like. And by running hero, I was limiting his options.

It was that moment that pushed me away from hero and back towards D&D. Yeah, it's not as flexible as Hero, or many other systems. But IME, most people _grok_ D&D, and can play any character type they care to play if they can play at all.

Later, I got into verbal fencing with GURPS fans, who in answering my charges that IME GURPS players too easily build characters with scads of half point skills it was my "players fault."

Such arguments firmed up my philosophy that it is not the job of the players to support the game, but vice versa. If your players don't enjoy a game, that is not a slight to the players. You can't obligate the players to fit the game, much less judge them.

I could easily slam rules light players for their lack of mathematical ability, but given my experience with Rob, I tried to avoid going that route because I consider it the "low road". It's not the player's job to fit the game. It's the game's job to support the players.

So, I'll own that if D&D accounting is not too your liking, you should probably play something with less accounting, or (at the very least) make efforts to minimize it. But by the same token, if the lack of robustness is limiting the actions your players consider, I'd say that is on the game, not on the players.

It is easier to change the game you are playing, or to change rules of a game, than it is to change people. Games are dispensible.


----------



## Remathilis

Staffan said:
			
		

> I don't have much, if any, experience with SWd20, but I find it hard to believe that it would take less time to make a character than "Choose a template, split up 7D worth of skills, and make up a name."
> 
> 
> In D6, you roll Dodge once per round, not per attack. So that takes slightly longer, but not that much longer. And you don't have lots of hp, so fights tend to be over sooner for that reason.
> 
> 
> That one's a poor example, since it's spelled out in the rules: "Swinging across a shaft in the Death Star on a rope with a princess in your arms" is the example used for a Difficult (16-20) climbing/jumping roll. Since you're dodging at the same time, you get -1D to your skill (for performing multiple actions).




Shows thats its been too long since I cracked the WEG SW revised books...


----------



## Desdichado

BluSponge said:
			
		

> One of the most frusterating experiences I had as a GM (in an RPGA event, no less) was trying to run a chase scene between the party and a halfling wererat in the middle of an orchard.  .......Another pull-your-hair-out moment from the RPGA:.......



I think the lesson to be learned there has a lot more to do with the RPGA and much less to do with rules heavy vs. rules light though.


----------



## diaglo

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I think the lesson to be learned there has a lot more to do with the RPGA and much less to do with rules heavy vs. rules light though.



ditto.

diaglo "hasn't had a good recent experience with the RPGA since around 1983 or so" Ooi


----------



## fredramsey

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Especially when swung vigorously against the side of the player's head.





			
				Turanil said:
			
		

> You mean fredramsey's?




Oh yeah? Well... you... I mean, yo mama...

BWAAAAAH! Mommy, the mean old forum man talked bad about me! WAAAAAH!


----------



## Desdichado

rabindranath72 said:
			
		

> Mr. Mearls,
> first, let us put some hypthesis:
> For "rules-lite" system I mean a system that:
> 1) allows me short preparation time for creating NPCs, "monsters" and encounters
> 2) allows fast character creation
> 3) does not need reference to volumes just to adjudicate an action so that players won't throw the books at your face
> in the above, for "short" I mean a fuzzy definition which can be roughly translated in the order of tens of minutes, not going over the hour (or more as in The Other System).



You have a lot of nerve posting all those subjective criteria and then taking anyone to task for the "scientificality" of their argument.  If that's what you mean by rules light, how is d20 not rules light?
1)  I've never spent more than an hour tops preparing for monsters and encounters for an adventure that will take me through 4-6 evenings of gameplay.  And an hour is a strong outlier -- half an hour or less is more normal.  And much of that time is _not_ preparing mechanics either.
2)  With decisive players, d20 character creation can take 5 minutes or less for any character you can think of.  If I've spent more time on it than that, it's been because I've been sweating non-mechanical things like being wishy-washy on character concept or background.
3)  With the exception of the massive spell and magic item lists, d20 easily fits all of its rules in less than "volumes"--every game other than D&D uses the system in a single book that includes setting information, and often a sample adventure or two too.  Adjudicating an action is covered in the skill user chapter or the combat chapter, with some support from the GMing chapter of a game like d20 Call of Cthulhu, Wheel of Time, Star Wars or d20 Modern.  Other than character creation (including feats), those three chapters are *all* of the rules of the d20 system.  And other than the aforementioned spells and magic items, that's pretty much true for the D&D variety of d20 as well.


> So, as you can see, there are lots of rules lite systems which do not need 1 PHB, 2 DMG, N (for N large) Monster manuals, 1 Dummy Guide and what not.



That point would make more sense if it didn't also apply to every d20 game other than D&D--and the reason D&D is larger is because of massive lists of spells, magic items and monsters--all optional rules that are only used if the GM brings it into the game, for the most part.


> I understand that you both are on the payroll of WotC, but there is no need to say blatantly wrong things. You are free to say your opinion, but NOT to pass it for science.



As has been pointed out, you understand incorrectly.  And Dancey and Mearls *are* stating their opinion.  I don't think either has tried to pass that "research" as definitive.

And for that matter, Mr. Analytic, since you (presumably) don't know any better than us exactly what methods were used, you can't do more than question his methods.  You certainly can't condemn them when they have not been publicly described in any detail.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol

My experience with rules-heavy vs. rules-light gaming:

We've been running a FUDGE sci-fi game using the basic rules plus some of those plug-and-play supplements (eg. a combat system).  It's pretty good.  Most of what we do is role-playing, although a couple of the members of the group are gun-happy and find any excuse to turn the game into a firefight, which is interesting considering that it was meant to be a more interactive and character-driven game.  However, FUDGE is up to the task.

The mechanics of FUDGE, from the GM's perspective, are exactly like a DM working out what skill a particular action would fall under.  There's a bit of fuzziness, but everything can be more or less easily fit into a category.  Also, given that the players design their own skills by writing down a list of things they're good at and giving them each a modifier, it means that if the character wants to try something, he's likely got a skill to do it with, and therefore a mechanism to roll against.  This makes adjudication on the fly a lot easier, and a GM can literally stat up an entire character in 5 minutes if he needs to.  What FUDGE lacks is depth of specifics.  If you're into complexity in your rules (or even subsets of rules, like if you want a detailed cyberpunk computer hacking system) you either have to write it yourself or find someone who has done so on the internet and plug it into your system.

As far as speed goes, FUDGE does leave D&D in its dust.  Combat rounds usually take exactly as long as a player needs to describe what he's doing.  However, the results are vaguely defined most of the time, so there's a lot of "fill" required in the narration by the GM to explain what happens in terms of degrees of success, etc.  We can get a full 4 hours of play out of 4 hours of game, and a combat usually lasts no more than half an hour if there are many participants.  It seems exciting and fast-paced.

However, the tactical side of things is a bit fuzzed out.  FUDGE seems like it would make for good swashbuckling, but poor special-ops tactical missions.  It's also not for beginners.  A good GM is necessary.


----------



## Rasyr

rabindranath72 said:
			
		

> Furthermore, please, pay attention when hosting people like Mr. Dancey who SEEM to talk about science and experiments without obviously knowing what they are speaking about. I speak from a professional viewpoint, being an Associate Researcher in Statistics. And what Mr. Dancey made to pass as an experiment, is, plainly put, ludicrous.
> 
> I understand that you both are on the payroll of WotC, but there is no need to say blatantly wrong things. You are free to say your opinion, but NOT to pass it for science.




Technically, Dancey is not on WotC's payroll as he stopped working for them a number of years ago, however, he continues to espouse propaganda and theories, and suggestions all meant to further his own private agenda of supporting the OGL and/or WotC. (This is born out by watching his actions and reading his statements over the past couple of years).

Dancey also has a bit of a history of skewing facts to support his own agendas. This bit about the watching of groups through is two way mirror is nothing more than drivel because he does not support any of his observations with the details of his "test". What is the gaming experience of the subject? What is the "rules lite" game being used? What is HIS definition of rules lite? He never tells you, and I wouldn't expect him to as doing so would most likely invalidate his "experiment". To him the only "facts" that seem to matter are those that support his positions.

In regards to Mr. Mearls' opinion about rules-lite games, all I can say about that is that it appears that he is or has been heavily influenced by Dancey. The Prediction blog, in which the quoted Dancey remark was a comment, seems (at least to me) to have been coached, or influenced by  Dancey's own opinions on the matter. That prediction almost sounds like Dancey's wishlist of events to happen to the gaming market (as it would of course aid him in his agenda of advancing WotC). Mr. Mearls did not explain anything behind his reasoning or thought processes for that prediction, yet lo and behold, along comes Dancey who does give an explanation for them. It is also interesting to note that several of his predictions seem to only be viable if 4e were to come to pass soon (such as a number of companies dying within a year - this would mirror the collapse of a number of companies when 3.5 came out).

*Interesting side note:* A few months ago, in one of the many 4e threads, Mr. Mearls stated that he believed that 4e would be coming in a year or two. Yet, his prediction says "hypothetical" 4e. A change in tune? or an NDA? 

As to the subject of rules lite versus rules heavy, IMO, neither is better or worse than the other, and the definition of both IS highly subjective to the individual looking at them.

For example, take Rolemaster and D&D. In my opinion, Rolemaster is rules lite and D&D is rules heavy. Why? It is simple, Rolemaster has very few rules by exception, whereas D&D has a number of them. Both systems have a universal mechanic (which is virtually identical except for the size of the dice used in resolution). Yes, Rolemaster has a lot of tables/charts, but guess what, those are not rules, those are just tables. So, while Rolemaster is table-heavy, it is, IMO, rules lite. But for D&D, which is relatively table-lite, it is rules heavy because it has lots of special case, or situational rules, that may or may not follow the core mechanics of the system.

Neither is a bad system, better than the other, they are just different systems. As different systems, they support different styles of play. This is the major difference between rules lite and rules heavy games, they support different styles of play. So, of course, somebody who prefers one is not likely to like the other, at least for a given specific style of play.


----------



## Desdichado

Wow, Rasyr.  That's a heaping lot of conspiracy theory you're propogating there.


----------



## der_kluge

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> 1)  I've never spent more than an hour tops preparing for monsters and encounters for an adventure that will take me through 4-6 evenings of gameplay.  And an hour is a strong outlier -- half an hour or less is more normal.  And much of that time is _not_ preparing mechanics either.
> 2)  With decisive players, d20 character creation can take 5 minutes or less for any character you can think of.  If I've spent more time on it than that, it's been because I've been sweating non-mechanical things like being wishy-washy on character concept or background.




I keep seeing comments like this, and all I want is to smoke what you guys are smoking.  I made an 18th level cleric for a pick-up game at Gen Con several years ago, and it took me well into the game before I finally decided on what all my spells were going to be that I had memorized. That was 2nd edition!  It would be worse now, since I'd also have to figure out which feats I wanted, how to allocate my skill points, and which domains I wanted to take.  The total time was at least an hour and a half.

I like character creation to be fast when it's necessitated, but I find it extremely difficult to slap together a high level spellcaster in 3rd edition in a short amount of time. It just can't be done.

If you're spending an hour developing 4-6 sessions worth of games you're either running a very low-level game, or you're primarily using monsters right out of the book for enemies. Because you certainly can't stat out several high level BBEGs in that amount of time.


----------



## Desdichado

der_kluge said:
			
		

> I keep seeing comments like this, and all I want is to smoke what you guys are smoking.  I made an 18th level cleric for a pick-up game at Gen Con several years ago, and it took me well into the game before I finally decided on what all my spells were going to be that I had memorized.



OK, I admit high level spellcasters are the exception.

But honestly--how many times are you creating high level spellcasters from scratch?


----------



## Psion

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Technically, Dancey is not on WotC's payroll as he stopped working for them a number of years ago, however, he continues to espouse propaganda and theories, and suggestions all meant to further his own private agenda of supporting the OGL and/or WotC. (This is born out by watching his actions and reading his statements over the past couple of years).




I'm not seeing anything "sinister" here. It was his theory to begin with. This doesn't diverge greatly in obviousness from "Ryan is expressing his opinion."



> In regards to Mr. Mearls' opinion about rules-lite games, all I can say about that is that it appears that he is or has been heavily influenced by Dancey. The Prediction blog, in which the quoted Dancey remark was a comment, seems (at least to me) to have been coached, or influenced by  Dancey's own opinions on the matter. That prediction almost sounds like Dancey's wishlist of events to happen to the gaming market (as it would of course aid him in his agenda of advancing WotC).




Once again, eh. It's obvious that Mearls is one individual whose entire current livelihood was born from the OGL. It's a little hard to argue that doesn't influence him. But I think it's a little off the wall to suggest he was "coached" by Dancey. Mearls has been a source of bold predictions and analysis for some time. It's not at all suspicious or out of character for him to post this himself.


----------



## der_kluge

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> OK, I admit high level spellcasters are the exception.
> 
> But honestly--how many times are you creating high level spellcasters from scratch?




Well, not very often, admittedly, but if you're playing in a high level 3rd edition campaign, the GM has to spend a lot of time if he's statting out lots of high level spellcasters as opponents. 3rd edition becomes an exponential amount of work the higher the level becomes, unless the game is just completely fluff/story driven.

My last campaign ended at 15th level, and it was heavy combat, with lots of creatures like necromancers and Slaad, some with multiple templates. I had sheets and sheets of monsters statistics, most of whom had inate spellcasting abilities, different levels of immunity like lightning, fire, etc damage reduction, and other things. Combats took an excessive amount of time. It drove me insane. All kinds of "fuzzy" rules came up all the time.  

- Is a Slaad big enough to fit inside of an Otiluke's Resilient Sphere?
- Can I dimension Door into an anti-life shell?
- Do mirror images work in the dark?
- how much damage does a large shield, shield bash incur? What are the bonuses to hit?

ad nauseum.  After that campaign, I decided that I never wanted to run a high level 3rd edition game again.


----------



## Psion

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> OK, I admit high level spellcasters are the exception.
> 
> But honestly--how many times are you creating high level spellcasters from scratch?




As I DM, I do it all the time.

Of course, I use the immortal advice of Dungeoncraft on the issue, which players can't get away with. Still, as often as not, there is a "pat" set of spells for a given class that I have any experience playing that I could jot down fairly quickly.

Just for fun, let's try it. I'll pull up the SRD, hit reply, pick spells for an 18th level cleric, and see how long it takes me.


----------



## Desdichado

der_kluge said:
			
		

> ad nauseum.  After that campaign, I decided that I never wanted to run a high level 3rd edition game again.



I have to admit--my opinions are based on fairly little experience with high level gameplay in d20.  For a variety of reasons--escalating rule complexity only being one of them, and not necessarily the most important--I've avoided it.


----------



## Remathilis

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> For the record, I do not consider _Castles & Crusades_ to be a truly "rules-light" system. I would rate it more on the level of "rules-simple." Like D&D, C&C has a relatively simple resolution mechanic. D&D has, over the years, accumulated a number of "situation-specific" rulings that were, with the publication of 3e, codified into the "official system." The official system has been tested to be "balanced" with all of those add-ons taken into account. I'm not sure the game is necessarily balanced if you start pulling things out, but I don't think you could balance the game for a lot fewer rules and then start adding things in without jeopardizing its "balance" either.
> 
> The points Ryan Dancey has been making since he advocated the OGL are primarily basic marketing ones. Now, since roleplaying games are a hobby, they don't necessarily follow the paradigm he's using, but it isn't fair to ignore his point completely. Any complicated system benefits, in the long-term, from what marketing people call "network effects." Basically, the theory runs like this: if everybody's got the same "interface," their experience is more portable. And the more people that use it, the more value it has to people. And the more value it has, the more people use it, and so on.
> 
> This means that there's a reduced learning curve _in the long run._ Rules-light vs. rules-heavy inadvertently treads on these network effect issues. If everyone's playing the same "rules-heavy" game, then the learning curve is drastically reduced _if you switch gaming groups._ If everyone's playing the same "rules-light" game, but each group has a pool of "house rules," then the network effects only apply to the rules-light aspect of the game. For the record, many games (like C&C) benefit from (and exist because of) the network effects created by Dancey's brainchild - the Open Gaming License.
> 
> And the simple fact is that the Core mechanic of the Open Gaming License is the same as the core mechanic of the Original D&D Game. That's why C&C can be published under the OGL and be recognizable as the original game. D&D's true genius (mechanics-wise) was always its combat resolution system. Skills were definitely a secondary consideration. The smart thing Wizards did when they made 3e was to standardize the d20 as THE conflict resolution mechanic for the game. They took the mechanics for combat resolution that made D&D so popular and applied them across the board. C&C actually copied that "univeral mechanic" from 3e (tweaked slightly - the SIEGE engine).
> 
> Where the Third Edition designers MAY have been overzealous is in their attempts to balance out EVERYTHING. It can fairly be argued that they could have left some things less defined. IMO, some of the weird "too far" mechanics include the rules for types of bonuses, stacking and so forth. The "character wealth by level" guidelines are another example. The designers took a perceived problem - Monty Haul characters - and decided to address it by stating what level of wealth was "reasonable." The net result was that the ramp-up of character's abilities became officially defined by their treasure. I don't regard any of these things as "core aspects" of third edition. They were more inadvertent side effects of attempts to address areas that caused a headache for some DMs.





I think alot of people are forgetting what D&D 3.0 was trying to fix. Over the years, AD&D varied wildly based on HR, supplements, and DM perrogative. I might use just standard AD&D pummeling, but Bob uses the OA martial arts and Luke uses Combat and Tactics Unarmed Strikes, etc. There WAS no guideline to where a ghoul was an appropriate challenge for a 1st level PC, or that a giant was appropriate for a 10th. Or that +5 swords are for 16th level PCs. Or the cleric's power varied from nil (complete priests) to vastly (faiths and avatars). Or that the RPGA had a houserule and ban list miles long. Or that by design flaw thieves were weak and wizards ruled all at high levels. Or that elves WERE the best racial choice. 

D&D 3.0 tried to put everything on a level playing field that a rule had existed for for 20 YEARS! They tied as much as they could to a common mechanic. They retooled everything and provided an option to handle (nearly) everything. Why? Cuz thats what players (most of em) WANTED from D&D, a unified system. The downside was having hundreds of rules to cover obscure scenarios (overrun anyone?) 

They also made everything balanced, to the joy of some and the chargin of others. By taking into account Conan's +1 sword into the CR, they made his sword necessary. by assuming a traditional mixed party, the made it almost necessary. 

D&D rules "bloat" was in response to what players wanted in the late 90's, more unified structure and easy resolution. With that came the bloat of having hundreds of rules to stop powergaming, adjuncate wealth, and balance weapon damage. Not every DM wants (or needs) this kind of hand-holding, but there are some that DO. A good DM can make a game work with a detailed combat system or with paper-rock-scissors. A poor DM could use every shred of help they can find. 

 When we were younger, we had 16 people beat up on a giant. 16! In MELEE! A battlemat would have made that impossible. Was my DM a bad DM? No, just young and inexperienced. Would the battlemat shown him that was impossible! Probably! A battlemat would have solved a lot of fireball disputes (I wasn't within 20 feet! Yes you were!) We can get through a combat in quickly even counting squares, making 5' steps and using tactical manuvers (grappls still slow down the game though). 

As many have said, the biggest fault I have with Rules Lite is the "mother may I" syndrome. Mother, may I move and attack? (nah, he's too far). What about me (yeah, your closer, go ahead). Can I swing from the chandeleer? What about knock him off the balcony? Catch the falling phial? Without a rule to fall back on, the DM decides on the spot. 

As both a player and a DM, I'd rather have a cushy rule-set that I can tweak than having to adjuncate rules on the fly. YMMV.


----------



## Desdichado

Psion said:
			
		

> Just for fun, let's try it. I'll pull up the SRD, hit reply, pick spells for an 18th level cleric, and see how long it takes me.



I'd like to see that.  In my experience, the myth of hours and hours of prep time is just that--a myth.  Either that or inefficent use of time.


----------



## diaglo

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I think alot of people are forgetting what D&D 3.0 was trying to fix.



i think you are confusing the words fix and neuter.

it didn't fix anything. it did neuter D&D.


----------



## diaglo

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I'd like to see that.  In my experience, the myth of hours and hours of prep time is just that--a myth.  Either that or inefficent use of time.





it isn't a myth.

heck, i do it for OD&D.


----------



## Psion

18th level cleric

Assume wis 15+4 advancements = 19 = +4 wis bonus

0: 6
1-3: 6+1
4: 5+1
5-6: 4+1
7-8: 3+1
9: 2+1

Domains: Sun, Knowledge
Domain spells: 1 - Detect Secret Doors; 2 - Detect Thoughts; 3 - Searing Light; 4 - Divination; 5 - True Seeing; 6 - Find the Path; 7 - Sunbeam; 8 - Sunburst; 9 - Prismatic Sphere.
Spells prepared: 0 - Create Water, Detect Magic, Detect Poison, Light (x2), Read Magic;1 -Command, Comprehend Languages, Entropic Shield, Protection from Evil, Remove Fear, Shield of Faith; 2 - Bull's Strenght, Bear's Endurance, Owl's Wisdom, Hold PErson, Shatter, Shield Other; 3 - Continual Flame, Invisibility Purge, Magic Circle against Evil, Protection from Energy (x2), Remove Curse; 4 - Death Ward, Dimentiuonal Anchor, Freedom of Movement, Divine Power, Restoration; 5 - Break Enchantment, Flame Strike, Scrying, Spell Resitance; 6 - Greater Dispel Magic, Harm, Heal, Wind Walk; 7 - Holy Word, Regenerate, Summon Monster VII; 8 - Holy Aura, Fire Storm, Summon Monster VIII; 9 - Miracle, True Resurrection.

If I knew how strong or weak the magic provided would be, I might pick magic vestement instead at 3rd level.

Done.


----------



## Remathilis

der_kluge said:
			
		

> Well, not very often, admittedly, but if you're playing in a high level 3rd edition campaign, the GM has to spend a lot of time if he's statting out lots of high level spellcasters as opponents. 3rd edition becomes an exponential amount of work the higher the level becomes, unless the game is just completely fluff/story driven.
> 
> My last campaign ended at 15th level, and it was heavy combat, with lots of creatures like necromancers and Slaad, some with multiple templates. I had sheets and sheets of monsters statistics, most of whom had inate spellcasting abilities, different levels of immunity like lightning, fire, etc damage reduction, and other things. Combats took an excessive amount of time. It drove me insane. All kinds of "fuzzy" rules came up all the time.
> 
> - Is a Slaad big enough to fit inside of an Otiluke's Resilient Sphere?
> - Can I dimension Door into an anti-life shell?
> - Do mirror images work in the dark?
> - how much damage does a large shield, shield bash incur? What are the bonuses to hit?
> 
> ad nauseum.  After that campaign, I decided that I never wanted to run a high level 3rd edition game again.




Isn't this the same kinda stuff you HAVE to come up with on a near constant basis when using a RL system?

A ORS is a 1 ft diameter per level (15' diameter sphere for 15th level caster) (PH 258) Slaads range from 8-10 feet (MM 229-231)
No rules says you can't but leaving there would hedge you out as normal (PH 248)
Mirror Image is specificly says the attack MUST SEE the image to have an effect. Closing your eyes negates the spell (but effectively blinds you). So no, darkness negates the spell (PH 254)
A large shield does 1d4 damage (PH 116) and is treated as a one-handed martial weapon (PH 125). A LS for an ogre would do (1d6) (PH 114) You use your normal to hit unless you attack with your weapon as well, then you use the TWF penalties appropriate (PH 160)

I found all of this in 5 minutes using the core books. It took longer to find page numbers for the rules I already knew. I fail to see how I could have been faster without making something up on the fly (Yes, No, Yes, eh, 1d6 damage)


----------



## Psion

9:44 - 10:02. 18 minutes. Longer than I expected, but not unreasonable, I think. It would have gone quicker if I had a sheet and just ticked off the spells I wanted -- which I think you would want for a tournament style character sheet.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Psion said:
			
		

> 18th level cleric
> 
> Assume wis 15+4 advancements = 19 = +4 wis bonus
> 
> 0: 6
> 1-3: 6+1
> 4: 5+1
> 5-6: 4+1
> 7-8: 3+1
> 9: 2+1
> 
> Domains: Sun, Knowledge
> Domain spells: 1 - Detect Secret Doors; 2 - Detect Thoughts; 3 - Searing Light; 4 - Divination; 5 - True Seeing; 6 - Find the Path; 7 - Sunbeam; 8 - Sunburst; 9 - Prismatic Sphere.
> Spells prepared: 0 - Create Water, Detect Magic, Detect Poison, Light (x2), Read Magic;1 -Command, Comprehend Languages, Entropic Shield, Protection from Evil, Remove Fear, Shield of Faith; 2 - Bull's Strenght, Bear's Endurance, Owl's Wisdom, Hold PErson, Shatter, Shield Other; 3 - Continual Flame, Invisibility Purge, Magic Circle against Evil, Protection from Energy (x2), Remove Curse; 4 - Death Ward, Dimentiuonal Anchor, Freedom of Movement, Divine Power, Restoration; 5 - Break Enchantment, Flame Strike, Scrying, Spell Resitance; 6 - Greater Dispel Magic, Harm, Heal, Wind Walk; 7 - Holy Word, Regenerate, Summon Monster VII; 8 - Holy Aura, Fire Storm, Summon Monster VIII; 9 - Miracle, True Resurrection.
> 
> If I knew how strong or weak the magic provided would be, I might pick magic vestement instead at 3rd level.
> 
> Done.



Is this a fully stat-ed NPC?


----------



## Turanil

oh well...


----------



## WizarDru

Psion said:
			
		

> Such arguments firmed up my philosophy that it is not the job of the players to support the game, but vice versa. If your players don't enjoy a game, that is not a slight to the players. You can't obligate the players to fit the game, much less judge them.




Hello, .sig!  

I should point out, Dancey and Mike Mearls were both commenting in a comment thread from a BLOG.  Not a trade magazine.  Not an industry news column.  Not even ENWorld.  Between professional colleagues (I don't know if they're friends or not, but I assume at least casual acquaintences).  This whole "how DARE THEY!" sub-theme to the thread seems awfully silly to me.

Second thought: Dancey and Mearls were talking purely from a financial standpoint.  In general, the trend appears that games that are rules heavier sell better and longer than games that don't.  That would seem to be self-evident: if a game really only requires a very simple rule-set, it really only needs supplements for fluff....and pure fluff supplements don't really sell that well.  Great for individual games, perhaps, but not conducive to continued company growth and support.  Right or wrong, that's the direction they're approaching this discussion from, I think.  This thread has taken that and made it the footnote, while taking what was an anecdote of the original thread and made it the focus...because that's what interests us.


----------



## Desdichado

Psion said:
			
		

> 18th level cleric
> Done.



18 minutes -- a little on the long(er than I claimed) side, but that's using the SRD and posting the results here.  Presumably you could shave a little off that with a good pre-printed character sheet and your PHB in hand.


----------



## Psion

der_kluge said:
			
		

> My last campaign ended at 15th level, and it was heavy combat, with lots of creatures like necromancers and Slaad, some with multiple templates. I had sheets and sheets of monsters statistics, most of whom had inate spellcasting abilities, different levels of immunity like lightning, fire, etc damage reduction, and other things. Combats took an excessive amount of time. It drove me insane. All kinds of "fuzzy" rules came up all the time.
> 
> - Is a Slaad big enough to fit inside of an Otiluke's Resilient Sphere?
> - Can I dimension Door into an anti-life shell?
> - Do mirror images work in the dark?
> - how much damage does a large shield, shield bash incur? What are the bonuses to hit?




(shrug) I have things like this come up from time to time. Make the call, jot it down, look it up later. Record your decision if there is no "right answer".

No system covers everything, but just because you are not playing rules light does not mean you check your DM judgement at the door.


----------



## eyebeams

Psion said:
			
		

> 9:44 - 10:02. 18 minutes. Longer than I expected, but not unreasonable, I think. It would have gone quicker if I had a sheet and just ticked off the spells I wanted -- which I think you would want for a tournament style character sheet.




No, you're not done. That stat bloc isn't complete and the character isn't equipped. This profile does not represent a ready to run character in any way, shape or form. Bzzzt!


----------



## Psion

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Is this a fully stat-ed NPC?




A sufficiently statted NPC would have been much quicker.


----------



## Psion

eyebeams said:
			
		

> No, you're not done.




Uh, yes I am. I only said I was going to see how long it took to pick spells.

You do not have the luxury of re-defining challenges I set for myself, thankyouverymuch.

If your post was just a rude way of saying "that's not all there is to making a character", that was not my intention from the outset.


----------



## der_kluge

Psion said:
			
		

> 18th level cleric
> 
> Assume wis 15+4 advancements = 19 = +4 wis bonus
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Done.




But you didn't pick a race, you didn't pick feats, you didn't calculate his skills, take any synergies into account (hey, you never know when a bluff skill might come in handy, even in a pick-up game).  you didn't pick magic items. That 18th level cleric isn't going to last long without some magic gear.


----------



## Psion

der_kluge said:
			
		

> But you didn't pick a race, you didn't pick feats, you didn't calculate his skills, take any synergies into account (hey, you never know when a bluff skill might come in handy, even in a pick-up game).  you didn't pick magic items. That 18th level cleric isn't going to last long without some magic gear.




See the post above yours. I never said I was going to fully stat out a character. Just pick spells.

The point brought forth was that there is a big time investment in picking spells. I was just doing a real illustration of how long picking spells for a PC should take.


----------



## diaglo

der_kluge said:
			
		

> But you didn't pick a race, you didn't pick feats, you didn't calculate his skills, take any synergies into account (hey, you never know when a bluff skill might come in handy, even in a pick-up game).  you didn't pick magic items. That 18th level cleric isn't going to last long without some magic gear.



nor give him a name.

most players take the longest time coming up with a darn name.


----------



## Desdichado

der_kluge said:
			
		

> But you didn't pick a race, you didn't pick feats, you didn't calculate his skills, take any synergies into account (hey, you never know when a bluff skill might come in handy, even in a pick-up game).  you didn't pick magic items. That 18th level cleric isn't going to last long without some magic gear.



Even if it takes as long to do that as it took to do what he did do, I think we've got a clear indication that it doesn't take "hours" to make even a high level spellcaster, unless the player is indecisive.

The post I was responded to arbitrarily picked an hour for character creation as the maximum cut-off point for short vs. long, and I think it's clear it can be done in half an hour, even for a high level spellcaster, which is the most complex and time consuming option to create _by far_.  Any other type of character could be done in much less time.  I routinely make low to mid-level characters in five minutes or less of all classes and races.


----------



## der_kluge

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Isn't this the same kinda stuff you HAVE to come up with on a near constant basis when using a RL system?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I found all of this in 5 minutes using the core books. It took longer to find page numbers for the rules I already knew. I fail to see how I could have been faster without making something up on the fly (Yes, No, Yes, eh, 1d6 damage)





Well, I can see your point, but there are just so many other little things in 3rd edition that don't exist in say C&C, or OD&D - the myriad spells, and things like DR, or counterspelling which can complicate combat.

And not everyone knows all these rules. I'm not a walking rules encyclopedia. To avoid confrontation with my players after the fact, I want to make sure I have the precise rule at the moment in which the event happens. So, rather than guessing that the Resilient Sphere is large enough, I'm probably going to look up how big a Slaad is, and then I might ask the player (whom I expect to know) how big his sphere is. He might have to look that up as well. So, that takes time away from play. And some rules like "can you D-door into an anti-life shell" don't exist in the game, so despite the argument that 3rd edition is rules-heavy, it *still* doesn't cover every situation (and I don't expect it to), but the fact that it tries really hard to do so, leads me to believe that there might be some discussion about it somewhere, so in that situation, I'm inclined to look that one up as well. Those were actual situations that came up in my game, btw. And we had to stop and look all of them up because no one at the table knew off hand what the answer was, and this was a group that had probably been gaming collectively for 50 years or more.


----------



## WizarDru

diaglo said:
			
		

> nor give him a name.
> 
> most players take the longest time coming up with a darn name.




But...but....names are HARD, mang.
I mean, if they were hard for Gygan and Arneson, how can we do better?


----------



## der_kluge

Psion said:
			
		

> See the post above yours. I never said I was going to fully stat out a character. Just pick spells.
> 
> The point brought forth was that there is a big time investment in picking spells. I was just doing a real illustration of how long picking spells for a PC should take.




But there's a lot more to making a cleric than just picking his spells.  Maybe I should make a "playable" cleric and see how long it takes me. I would do that, but then I'm at work, and I don't really want to spend the rest of the morning working on a character I'm never going to play.

But the time it takes to make a character has as much to do with whether the setting is high magic or low magic. If I make a high level fighter, and I don't have to worry about choosing magic items, then it will be a lot faster than if I do.  So, I'm not even convinced that this is even a RH v. RL argument. It's just as much LM v. HM as well.

I was only trying to point out to JD that statting out high level baddies can take a long time in 3rd edition, especially if you really want to tailor them with specific feats, magic items, and maybe a PrC, or a template, as I often do.


And regarding the rules, there are those who simply aren't as comfortable making up a ruling on the fly, especially when I'm sure that there is already a ruling on the topic. I'm probably going to be more comfortable adlibing a rule when I know there isn't a rule in the book, versus adlibing a rule that I simply don't know the answer to, yet I know there is probably a rule for it, somewhere. Let's face it, there are lots of little rules in 3rd edition that exist, that rarely come up in game play, but that we know in the backs of our minds that are in there.


----------



## diaglo

roll 3d6 six times. record scores.

str
int
wis
con
dex
cha

roll 3d6 multiple by 10 for gps.

roll d6 hps

pick class. pick race. pick alignment. buy equipment.

other than name done.


----------



## Garnfellow

Psion said:
			
		

> 18th level cleric




1 minute per level to pick spells? That sounds about right. I ususally try to figure out the DCs for spells too, which would add another 5 mintures.

And then there's the equipment -- I find that as time consuming as anything else with high level characters, and I use Sean K Reynold's Gear Generator to speed things up.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Average prep time: 1 frantic hour of desperately scraping through books and scribbling on battlemats while blinking away sleep and rushing back and forth to get the session's miniatures spray-varnished.

Average game time: 8 hours.

Average combat time: 6 hours.  

Only the last is any kind of a problem, and it has far more to do with having up to 12 players at the table - and the readiness level of those players - at once than the heaviness of the rules.  Interestingly, this has held true from 3rd level to 14th in the current campaign, which corrected some of my mistaken notions about d20 combat.

I've never looked up a rule at the table while GMing, and don't allow players to spend time looking up rules on their turns.  They are, however, welcome to look up rules during the 30+ minutes other players are taking their turns each round. :\


----------



## BluSponge

Psion said:
			
		

> I'm not insulted (though I must say, if it were my players you were referring to, it might have been) so much as I think it's a totally bogus cop-out when it comes to defending a game.




Maybe.  But if the shoe fits.  (As to your players, I don't know them, so for all I know they are super-geniuses who plot world domination between coke breaks.)

[snip]



> Psion is running a rip-roaring game of hero, but find that Rob routinely avoids running characters that use magic. I soon discover that Rob does not use magic because he doesn't grok the power system. Well, Rob's a college student, so he should understand the basic math that goes into making a Hero character right?
> 
> I thought so, but it occurs to me that whether or not he's capable, that's work to him. It occurs to me that gaming being a leisure activity, it's not my place to make him do things he doesn't like. And by running hero, I was limiting his options.




That's all well and good -- the interests of the players should be taken into consideration when choosing the game.  Of course, if I was a big Hero fan, and all my players were happy (even Rob, though he doesn't want to deal with magic), I probably would have kept playing it.  But that's neither here nor there.

(And, BTW, YOU weren't limiting his options by playing HERO, ROB was limiting his options because HE didn't want to invest the time to grok the magic rules.  Don't take up the blame for the decisions of other people.)

[snip again]



> So, I'll own that if D&D accounting is not too your liking, you should probably play something with less accounting, or (at the very least) make efforts to minimize it. But by the same token, if the lack of robustness is limiting the actions your players consider, I'd say that is on the game, not on the players.




I'd say its an apples and oranges argument.  Sure, player preference has to be a consideration when choosing the game to play (as does the DM's preference -- I notice you didn't switch to GURPS or Rolemaster when you dropped HERO).  however, there is a big difference (IMHO) between players who have difficulty grasping the mechanics of the system and feeling intimidated by wide open spaces.

The original poster said he players never tried to grapple, bull-rush, or trip before 3e.  Understandable, since two of these are tactical options with specific sub-system rules.  But my point is, they could have done this before -- particularly in a rules lite game -- without need of these subsystems.  Here you have a clear example of the playing to the rules as opposed to the situation.  It also goes back to the hamstringing example I mentioned.  3e, does not have called shots, so in order to perform a specific action like hamstringing, you need a feat (by the book, anyway).  Now, with a game system with less rule-constriction, the players and GM are free to get out of this mindset.  

That's what I was getting at with the outside-of-the-box comment.  It's not to say they are playing wrong (and I didn't say they had, which was why I was surprised by your earlier post), only that the limits on their actions are completely artifical and that doesn't speak to any strength of DnD, or any other game system for that matter.  I would say, however, that it is a weakness of DnD that it encourages that kind of play.  My evidence for that is mostly anecdotal, granted, but I've seen it more often than not.



> It is easier to change the game you are playing, or to change rules of a game, than it is to change people. Games are dispensible.




So are people.    

No, really, you are right.  Certainly if the players don't "get" the game, it may be best to switch gears and try something else.  I have a couple of games on my shelf I'd love to run, but I just don't have the right crowd of players.  However I've also found that the GM sets the example for play in his game.  If players are playing to the rules, its a fair bet the GM is too.  The best way to get them out of the box is to burn it down, stomp on it, and sell them fragments as souvenirs.     

Tom


----------



## Psion

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> 1 minute per level to pick spells? That sounds about right.




I don't think it's linear. You have more spells of each level at high level, and more levels.



> I ususally try to figure out the DCs for spells too, which would add another 5 mintures.




Since all spells of the same level use the same DC, it'd take me about 5 seconds.

Again, assuming 19 wis, DC 14+spell level. Perhaps 1-4 more from feats and items.

Most char sheets have a spot for DC per spell level, so I think that's sufficient.



> And then there's the equipment -- I find that as time consuming as anything else with high level characters,




I agree. But that's not much different between spellcasting and nonspellcasting characters.


----------



## buzz

Akrasia said:
			
		

> The C&C PHB is 128 pages -- 60+ of which are merely spell descriptions.



Spells are probably the primary source of complexity in D&D and its derivatives. Each spell is its own little subset of rules. Saying that C&C has _60 pages_ of "mere" spell descriptions does nothing to convince me that it is rules-light. That's 60 more pages of rules, and that alone is proably more rule information than is contained in the entire _Buffy_ core book.

A "lite" spell system, IMO, is, e.g., Tri-Stat being able to cover those 60 pages with "Dynamic Magic - Rank 3: PC can create any magical effect with a max power of Rank 3."

So, personally, I don't buy it.


----------



## WizarDru

buzz said:
			
		

> A "lite" spell system, IMO, is, e.g., Tri-Stat being able to cover those 60 pages with "Dynamic Magic - Rank 3: PC can create any magical effect with a max power of Rank 3."
> 
> So, personally, I don't buy it.




Random Thought: GURPS Lite is 6 printed-pages.  Does that make it 'rules-light'?  Discuss.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> Near as I can figure, he means that game designers are responsible for balance and realism, and all that stuff needs to be figured out ahead of time by experts. Which I think is bunk.
> 
> Example: A character is trying to jump a ravine to grab a rope, in the rain. If you can't look in the book to find out what the right modifiers are, then it's on the head of the GM to come up with a target number, and maybe the players will argue, or it'll be too high or too low, or whatever.
> 
> To which I go, what the heck game are people playing that this would be worth an argument? If it's dramatic to have a chance of failure, have one, if it's not, don't. Does it really matter if this fictional character is better at grabbing a wet rope than someone would be in real life? Considering that the GM invented the rope, the ravine, and the rain, is there any advantage to measuring the distance and cross-referencing the guy's Jump skill, versus picking a DC that represents how hard you want it to be?



I have friends who would argue about this sort of thing until their face was blue.  They want to be the hero, they want to succeed.  They only accept failure if they know it was judged without any bias.

I think what he is refering to is closer to the situation where a player wants to trip an enemy but the rules only describe how to attack someone.  How do you trip someone?  How difficult is it?  What rolls should you make?  Will you remember what rolls to make next time someone tries to trip an enemy?  Will you as a DM say "you are jumping down on someone to knock them over, that's totally different than tripping, it needs a different roll"?

Now, someone tries to disarm someone, but there are no rules for that.  What do you roll for it?  How hard is it?  Will your players start arguing about what roll they have to make once you make one up?  i.e. "Disarming should be a STRENGTH based check, I'm hitting his weapon hard, I'm not trying to finesse it out of his hands.  Like that guy in that movie, do you think he had high dex?  No, but he disarmed many people!"  Will the rule you come up with be so complicated in a pursuit of realism that each time someone tries the move the game slows to a crawl?

So, the key in this situation is that the DM of a rules light game needs to have the skill to make up these sorts of things on the fly, be accurate enough to "realism" that their players at least accept their ruling without it ruining their disbelief of the setting, if not outright arguing (trust me, there are players who won't argue out of respect for their DM, but it will make the session less fun for them).

Since most of us are not experts on combat with swords or quite a few other things we do in RPGs, our rules may make sense to us but there is someone in our group who knows more about the subject matter than we do.  I prefer to let game designers spending the time researching "realism", striking a balance between fun and function.  I'll let them argue for weeks or months about a rule and its fairness and balance and come to an answer.  That allows me as a DM to say "You need to make a roll as decribed on page 56, if you have a problem with it, complain to WotC."  I can shift the blame, quell arguements and move on with telling the story without the hassle.

As for what Ryan said.  I agree.  When we used to play 2nd Edition AD&D, our arguements were twice as long and much more annoying and as a DM, I hated it.  2nd Ed can be considered "rules light" compared to 3E.  Even more rules light systems...they had even more problems.


----------



## Rasyr

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Wow, Rasyr.  That's a heaping lot of conspiracy theory you're propogating there.




Actually, not. My perception of Dancey's motivations come from watching his past actions and statements, nothing more. Such as his attempting to revise the Origins Awards so that if would be severely biased towards large companies (i.e. WotC, since it is the largest) by his wanting to include that one of the criteria for selecting products to go on the ballot be the number of units sold. And that this would bypass the panel of judges who are performing much the same task as the ENnies judges are doing.

I also have access to information and emails (legal access mind you, not like the former Treasurer of GAMA who was, IMO illegally, spying on the BoD before he got elected) from a number of sources which corroborate this. Although, I no longer have access to his fixgama website since he locked it down.

As to the connection I speculated about between Dancey and Mearls, that comes from seeing Dancey post and support what Mearls is saying, when Mearls isn't doing so himself, and from noting that what Mearls is saying is pretty doggone close to Dancey's viewpoints. Too close in some instances....

Well, in any case, believe what you want about this, but personally, if Dancey told me that it was daytime, I would look out a window....


----------



## buzz

The Shaman said:
			
		

> The question I would like to hear answered some time is this: would d20 have been as successful in terms of sales if it didn't come with the D&D brand name attached to the flagship product?



Do any of the d20-derived products count? None of them are allowed to have "D&D" on the product.

The problem ith this question is that no RPG in the history of earth has been as "successful" in terms of sales as those tied to D&D. You're asking wether d20 would have taken over 60% of the market had it not been tied to D&D, and that's unlikely. It is, however, entirely likely that it would have competed well with the other fish in the pond.

The more appropriate question to ask if you're questioning the power of branding over quality is whether the D&D brand is so much more important that it can save a crappy product. As we saw with 2e (leaving room for the poor business practices of TSR), the brand was not enough. We've also seen many examples of systems tied to popular brands, and the brands didn't help. E.g., Superman and Batman are probably as recognizeable as Mickey Mouse globally, but that didn't keep the _DC Universe_ RPG from being a flop.

The brand has power, but it doesn't have ALL the power. If WotC had released AD&D2.5 instead of D&D/d20, I doubt ENWorld would even exist.


----------



## fredramsey

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I have friends who would argue about this sort of thing until their face was blue.




I had a player like that once.

We kicked his ass to the curb.

Been having loads of fun since then.


----------



## buzz

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Random Thought: GURPS Lite is 6 printed-pages.  Does that make it 'rules-light'?  Discuss.



Pedantic: GURPS Lite is 32 pages.


----------



## buzz

Rasyr said:
			
		

> In my opinion, Rolemaster is rules lite and D&D is rules heavy.



This is the most creative definition of "lite" I have yet seen in this thread. Even classifying HARP as "lite" would be a massive stretch.


----------



## buzz

der_kluge said:
			
		

> Well, not very often, admittedly, but if you're playing in a high level 3rd edition campaign, the GM has to spend a lot of time if he's statting out lots of high level spellcasters as opponents.



Why are we even discussing this? It's no secret that really high-level D&D PCs can take time to create (1st-level is cake, though). The point is what kind of reward you're getting for your effort. If I think the play experience of a game blows, I don't really care how fast I was able to create a PC (other than being glad that I only wasted so much time on it).

I had to go through two iterations of the build I did for my main _Champions_ character, and each took a lot of time, even with _HERO Designer_ software. That in no way has made me enjoy the two years I've been playing him any less.

As long as the process is enjoyable and the resulting play is fun, I could care less how long it takes to make a PC. Making PCs is half the fun.


----------



## buzz

WizarDru said:
			
		

> I should point out, Dancey and Mike Mearls were both commenting in a comment thread from a BLOG.  Not a trade magazine.  Not an industry news column.  Not even ENWorld.  Between professional colleagues (I don't know if they're friends or not, but I assume at least casual acquaintences).  This whole "how DARE THEY!" sub-theme to the thread seems awfully silly to me.
> 
> Second thought: Dancey and Mearls were talking purely from a financial standpoint.  In general, the trend appears that games that are rules heavier sell better and longer than games that don't.  That would seem to be self-evident: if a game really only requires a very simple rule-set, it really only needs supplements for fluff....and pure fluff supplements don't really sell that well.  Great for individual games, perhaps, but not conducive to continued company growth and support.  Right or wrong, that's the direction they're approaching this discussion from, I think.  This thread has taken that and made it the footnote, while taking what was an anecdote of the original thread and made it the focus...because that's what interests us.



Quoted for truth.


----------



## WizarDru

buzz said:
			
		

> Pedantic: GURPS Lite is 32 pages.




Sorry, you're right.  I was thinking of the old pamphlet for 3rd Edition that was passed out in the stores.  Fourth Edition has a much more comprehensive 'Lite' version.  Still, the point stands.


----------



## Voadam

Psion said:
			
		

> 18th level cleric
> 
> Assume wis 15+4 advancements = 19 = +4 wis bonus
> 
> 0: 6
> 1-3: 6+1
> 4: 5+1
> 5-6: 4+1
> 7-8: 3+1
> 9: 2+1
> 
> Domains: Sun, Knowledge
> Domain spells: 1 - Detect Secret Doors; 2 - Detect Thoughts; 3 - Searing Light; 4 - Divination; 5 - True Seeing; 6 - Find the Path; 7 - Sunbeam; 8 - Sunburst; 9 - Prismatic Sphere.
> Spells prepared: 0 - Create Water, Detect Magic, Detect Poison, Light (x2), Read Magic;1 -Command, Comprehend Languages, Entropic Shield, Protection from Evil, Remove Fear, Shield of Faith; 2 - Bull's Strenght, Bear's Endurance, Owl's Wisdom, Hold PErson, Shatter, Shield Other; 3 - Continual Flame, Invisibility Purge, Magic Circle against Evil, Protection from Energy (x2), Remove Curse; 4 - Death Ward, Dimentiuonal Anchor, Freedom of Movement, Divine Power, Restoration; 5 - Break Enchantment, Flame Strike, Scrying, Spell Resitance; 6 - Greater Dispel Magic, Harm, Heal, Wind Walk; 7 - Holy Word, Regenerate, Summon Monster VII; 8 - Holy Aura, Fire Storm, Summon Monster VIII; 9 - Miracle, True Resurrection.
> 
> If I knew how strong or weak the magic provided would be, I might pick magic vestement instead at 3rd level.
> 
> Done.




Pearls of power? Wisdom buffing items? Vow of poverty stat boosts? Tome type item for wisdom? Racial wisdom bonus or penalty? Scrolls, wands, staves, spell storing rings or weapons?

Your point for picking srd spells for a straight cleric once you determine stats is valid, but you might have to spend more time fine tuning and adding to the spells after you pick items and feats for this npc. Of course loading up on powerful armor, a big weapon, and a wondrous item or two can work as well without you touching the spell list.


----------



## buzz

Rasyr said:
			
		

> As to the connection I speculated about between Dancey and Mearls, that comes from seeing Dancey post and support what Mearls is saying, when Mearls isn't doing so himself, and from noting that what Mearls is saying is pretty doggone close to Dancey's viewpoints. Too close in some instances....



Man, between this and all the 4e threads I've seen you post in...


----------



## buzz

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Sorry, you're right.  I was thinking of the old pamphlet for 3rd Edition that was passed out in the stores.  Fourth Edition has a much more comprehensive 'Lite' version.  Still, the point stands.



GURPS Lite is agruably "lite". Granted, they had to narrow the scope of the rules pretty severely. GL basically lets you create normal human beings, and that's about it.


----------



## Voadam

Garnfellow said:
			
		

> And then there's the equipment -- I find that as time consuming as anything else with high level characters, and I use Sean K Reynold's Gear Generator to speed things up.




I agree, particularly without having the wealth per npc level in the srd to reference.

I'll have to check that generator out. Is it on his site?


----------



## der_kluge

buzz said:
			
		

> Why are we even discussing this? It's no secret that really high-level D&D PCs can take time to create (1st-level is cake, though). The point is what kind of reward you're getting for your effort. If I think the play experience of a game blows, I don't really care how fast I was able to create a PC (other than being glad that I only wasted so much time on it).
> 
> I had to go through two iterations of the build I did for my main _Champions_ character, and each took a lot of time, even with _HERO Designer_ software. That in no way has made me enjoy the two years I've been playing him any less.
> 
> As long as the process is enjoyable and the resulting play is fun, I could care less how long it takes to make a PC. Making PCs is half the fun.





I don't think a lengthy character creation process has anything to do with RL or RH actually. I was just disagreeing with Joshua that you could stat out a high level character quickly. That was my only point.


----------



## der_kluge

buzz said:
			
		

> This is the most creative definition of "lite" I have yet seen in this thread. Even classifying HARP as "lite" would be a massive stretch.




Well, there is a "HARP Lite".  

I think HARP is equivalent to 3rd edition in many ways. In some ways it is more complex (you have to roll to cast a spell, for example), and you have to look up all these charts for combat. In some ways it is less complex than 3rd edition, there are less combat options, and the monsters are less complex, and the power curve is a lot less than 3rd edition, so high level combat should theoretically go a lot smoother.

But no, I'm not sure I would consider HARP rules light.


----------



## dcas

mearls said:
			
		

> Name a "rules lite" RPG that remained in print and actively supported by a publisher for more than 5 years.




Lejendary Adventure (it's been in print and supported since 1999).


----------



## Psion

Voadam said:
			
		

> Pearls of power? Wisdom buffing items? Vow of poverty stat boosts? Tome type item for wisdom? Racial wisdom bonus or penalty? Scrolls, wands, staves, spell storing rings or weapons?




I was not making any assumptions about mgic, as my post-comment should have illustrated.



> Your point for picking srd spells for a straight cleric once you determine stats is valid, but you might have to spend more time fine tuning and adding to the spells after you pick items and feats for this npc. Of course loading up on powerful armor, a big weapon, and a wondrous item or two can work as well without you touching the spell list.




Sure. A few buff items my net me two or 3 more spells. I chose, what, 50 or so spells? That's peanuts.


----------



## eyebeams

Psion said:
			
		

> Uh, yes I am. I only said I was going to see how long it took to pick spells.
> 
> You do not have the luxury of re-defining challenges I set for myself, thankyouverymuch.
> 
> If your post was just a rude way of saying "that's not all there is to making a character", that was not my intention from the outset.




Then you simply set yourself a challenge that was irrelevant to the thread.


----------



## rabindranath72

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Even if it takes as long to do that as it took to do what he did do, I think we've got a clear indication that it doesn't take "hours" to make even a high level spellcaster, unless the player is indecisive.
> 
> The post I was responded to arbitrarily picked an hour for character creation as the maximum cut-off point for short vs. long, and I think it's clear it can be done in half an hour, even for a high level spellcaster, which is the most complex and time consuming option to create _by far_. Any other type of character could be done in much less time. I routinely make low to mid-level characters in five minutes or less of all classes and races.




My choice was not "arbitrary". It was an expected time, expectation being taken on a typical mid/high-level (15th) character, with at least one class choice. And just to respond to your preemptive questions, it is based on MANY, MANY character creation sessions. A sufficient number to have a sufficient statistic and decent credibility intervals for the whole process. The expected time, always for your information, is about 45 minutes, with a 95% credibility interval of about 10 minutes.

Since you admit to never have prepared an high level character, please add to the 18 minutes cited above, the time to:
1) choose feats and resolve all feat chains
2) choose skills
3) determine the relevant skill bonuses
4) evaluate skill synergy bonuses
5) evaluate skill bonuses due to feats
6) (optional: differentiate from class and cross class skills, if you have more than one class)
7) evaluate the saving throw bonuses from class and feats
8) do not forget to increase the stats every four levels, so you may possibly have to return to point 3) to recalculate (I suppose you already choose in advance all the skills and the classes)
9) choose equipment and magic items based on character level
10) check all the steps, since this process is error-prone

...surely I forgot something along.

Oh, this is for a plain-vanilla cleric. But wouldn't you slap a template or two, or add some prestige class in-between, just for fun?
Obviously, you must make sensed choices all along. I guess that if you picked each item randomly, you could cut about 15 minutes. Still, you would have to pass through steps 3) to 7) to make all things balance out.

I am really, really curious to look at how you make a mid level character in five minutes or less. I would like to learn your techniques, perhaps I may clean the tons of dust on my 3e books.

Best regards,
Antonio Eleuteri

Oh, Mr. Analytic here has a PhD in Statistics. So, when I speak about numbers, I know what I am speaking about, on the contrary of some others.


----------



## Psion

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Then you simply set yourself a challenge that was irrelevant to the thread.




For being irrelevant to the thread, lots of people sure seem interested in it. 

Of course, considering up thread you decide that people are "playing suckier games than they admit", you appear to be in the habit of speaking for others, which you really need not do. I am sure people can make their own decisions. If you find it irrelevant to you, feel free to not comment.

The topic/sentence being addressed was that making spellcasting characters takes lots more time than non-spellcasting characters. I addressed that statement directly with some real proof.

Do you dislike the actual results of the experiment so much you feel the need to wave it off?


----------



## fredramsey

To play devil's advocate (which I love to do),

As a DM, for an NPC, you CAN just write down an AC, a To Hit, a few spells, and Hit Points.

However, if you have someone in your group who is a "You can't do that, DM, it's not in the rules that way" then you are screwed, which is why DMs loath to create NPCs because of the time load.


----------



## mearls

I think this thread does an excellent job of summarizing why the RPG business is so screwed up.

The really funny thing about rules light v. rules heavy is that it's an utterly empty proposition. The number of rules in a game, or the length of the book, have no bearing on its quality. As a few posters have pointed out, the real issue is rules sufficiency v. insufficiency. A lot of indy games have very few rules, but all of those rules are directly applicable to play. If a GM has to make a judgement call, it's because the designer wanted it that way, not because he forgot a rule or missed a special case important to the flow of play.

What I think is fascinating is how people cling to rules light as if it's inherently better, to the point that I regularly see people describe games as rules light even though the game is obviously not as simple as, say, Over the Edge or Unknown Armies. The really funny thing is that people will argue with you about whether a game is light or not. Again, this is all the more interesting when you come to the conclusion that light v. heavy is a red herring. You don't see this sort of argument in other game forms - witness the discussion of computer RPGs, or look at board games. Is Settlers a better game than Puerto Rico? Is it better because it has fewer rules? Is Candyland better than both?

(A good rule of thumb for any student of RPG design - frame a question about RPGs in terms of other game forms. I think that's a useful tool to burrow into whether a question is important or a red herring.)

I think there's a tremendous element of conspicuous consumption at work here. In an alternate universe where D&D had incredibly simple rules and somehow managed to remain viable, I think we'd see the opposite - rules heavy wielded as a stamp of approval. To a chunk of gamers, there's a suite of positive traits inherently linked to rules light. In many cases, "rules light" simply means "a game I like." It also means, "Not D&D." There's an element of rebellion at work there, like the guy who hates pop music and collects records from obscure, late 70s bands that no one else has heard of.

But here's the key: an individual gamer can like whatever he wants, and buy whatever games he buys, and hate whatever games he hates. The problem arises when "professional" game designers take those attitudes with them when they cross the pro v. hobbyist line. The automatic link between "rules light" and "good game" that some people bear is a major hindrance on the development, innovation, and improvement of the basic form of RPGs.

So I think the pertinent question isn't "Is rules light or heavy better?" - the answer there is "No." The real question is, "Why does the rules light bring out such emotional responses, why do people get so defensive about it, why is there a knee jerk reaction towards it?" That's the question you need to ask, and that's where the path to figuring out why the "industry" is so messed up begins. Half of the act of RPG design is hacking through all the misconceptions, malformed conventional wisdom, and backwards thinking that clogs the "industry's" arteries.

(I suspect that the real issue at work is a question of good v. bad interface design. That's a very real issue, and something I've been meaning to write about for a long time now.)


----------



## Psion

rabindranath72 said:
			
		

> Oh, Mr. Analytic here has a PhD in Statistics. So, when I speak about numbers, I know what I am speaking about, on the contrary of some others.




Mr. Epistomological here would call this an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy.


----------



## Desdichado

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Actually, not.



Actually, yes.  You've got some interesting reasons for arriving at your conspiracy theory conclusions, but they remain conspiracy theory just the same.


----------



## Nine Hands

buzz said:
			
		

> From Mike Mearls' blog:




This has not been my observation.  I've played FUDGE and its not an arguement, its just up to the GM to come up with things on the fly (maybe they selected a bunch of spineless GMs).  A very robust rules lite system can support these things easier than a klunky rules system.  I wonder if they tried using a rules lite version of d20.  I doubt d20 could easily be reduced to less than a 20 pages without needing a major rewrite (ala C&C), its just not robust enough.

Also someone observing my RPG game through a two way mirror just seems wrong in some way, maybe the gamers had a feeling they were being watched?


----------



## fredramsey

mearls said:
			
		

> But here's the key: an individual gamer can like whatever he wants, and buy whatever games he buys, and hate whatever games he hates. The problem arises when "professional" game designers take those attitudes with them when they *cross the pro v. hobbyist line*. The automatic link between "rules light" and "good game" that some people bear is a major hindrance on the development, innovation, and improvement of the basic form of RPGs.




Amen.

And when it comes down to it, game systems are like @#$holes. Everyone has one, and everyone else's stinks.


----------



## Remathilis

der_kluge said:
			
		

> Well, I can see your point, but there are just so many other little things in 3rd edition that don't exist in say C&C, or OD&D - the myriad spells, and things like DR, or counterspelling which can complicate combat.
> 
> And not everyone knows all these rules. I'm not a walking rules encyclopedia. To avoid confrontation with my players after the fact, I want to make sure I have the precise rule at the moment in which the event happens. So, rather than guessing that the Resilient Sphere is large enough, I'm probably going to look up how big a Slaad is, and then I might ask the player (whom I expect to know) how big his sphere is. He might have to look that up as well. So, that takes time away from play. And some rules like "can you D-door into an anti-life shell" don't exist in the game, so despite the argument that 3rd edition is rules-heavy, it *still* doesn't cover every situation (and I don't expect it to), but the fact that it tries really hard to do so, leads me to believe that there might be some discussion about it somewhere, so in that situation, I'm inclined to look that one up as well. Those were actual situations that came up in my game, btw. And we had to stop and look all of them up because no one at the table knew off hand what the answer was, and this was a group that had probably been gaming collectively for 50 years or more.




I still couldn't tell you what the result of 22 is on the pummeling table  is, or how much XP a balor is worth, and I've played 2e for 10 years. No one should know all the rules. 

I'm not a walking encyclopedia also. Neither is my group. But everyone owns a PH in our group and we're adept at locating rules when needed. I'm one of the better (toot, toot)

If you have the slaad page open, its height is there. (if not, its size catagory is L, making it 8-15 ft) the caster SHOULD know his spell perimeters before casting, usually we have the page OPEN to said spell. If not, tut tut.

D-Door into a A-L-S is the kinda ad hoc rules Rules-Lite DMs LOVE to make, right?

Mirror Image is IN THE SPELL DESCRIPTION. Last paragraph. 

Knowing a shield does 1d4 is a quick glance at the weapons table (theres one on my DM screen). Shouldn't be too hard to determine the rest, esp the one size larger = one die higher common sense rule.

I did have to look them up, but it wouldn't have broken my flow. As a DM, I'm constantly telling another player to look up X while I'm adjunctating other actions. 3-4 people usually find what I need quickly.


----------



## Desdichado

rabindranath72 said:
			
		

> Since you admit to never have prepared an high level character, please add to that 18 minutes the time to:



No, I never admitted that -- I admitted to not doing it _often_, and no I won't add those times because _in my experience_ that's just you making a hyperbolic case and being indecisive as a player.


> Oh, Mr. Analytic here has a PhD in Statistics. So, when I speak about numbers, I know what I am speaking about, on the contrary of some others.



That's completely beside the point, though, isn't it?  Or did you read my response to your post?  Your problem is amply illustrated in the other part of what I quoted.  You make connections and conclusions that aren't there and aren't true, stir in ridiculous hyperbolic statements and anecdotal evidence, and then try to make some point about your statistical credentials.  Since your entire argument is based on non-statistical anecdotes and hyperbole, I don't care if you're a freakin' mentat -- it has no bearing on the conversation at hand.


----------



## Psion

mearls said:
			
		

> I think there's a tremendous element of conspicuous consumption at work here. In an alternate universe where D&D had incredibly simple rules and somehow managed to remain viable, I think we'd see the opposite - rules heavy wielded as a stamp of approval.




Yup. Too many people are out there seeking validation for their choices in gaming, and when they are outnumbered, feel a need to "prove their way better" by loudly making cases about how thier game is better.

But I would not call it theoretical at all. Right now we are in a rash of rules-light-validators, but at one time I saw an equivalent rash of rules-realistic-validators making the same case for GURPS.



> (I suspect that the real issue at work is a question of good v. bad interface design. That's a very real issue, and something I've been meaning to write about for a long time now.)




Not sure I know what you are getting at, but I'd be interested in what you have to say.


----------



## Gentlegamer

mearls said:
			
		

> The real question is, "Why does the rules light bring out such emotional responses, why do people get so defensive about it, why is there a knee jerk reaction towards it?" That's the question you need to ask, and that's where the path to figuring out why the "industry" is so messed up begins.



Here is the answer, for the purpose of this specific thread:


			
				Ryan Dancey said:
			
		

> 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.



Dancey claimed he scientifically dismissed "rules lite" as being "simpler and better."  He then opined that the only reason that "most people" think so is because "they desperately want them to be," impeaching their judgment.

That's why "emotional and defensive" responses have been given.  There has been nothing knee jerk about it.


----------



## Remathilis

mearls said:
			
		

> I think there's a tremendous element of conspicuous consumption at work here. In an alternate universe where D&D had incredibly simple rules and somehow managed to remain viable, I think we'd see the opposite - rules heavy wielded as a stamp of approval.




DING DING DING!

I remember hearing arguements about how GURPS or ROLEMASTER is better than D&D because "combat is more realistic and there are tables to handle critical hits, wounds to body parts, and random elements on the battlefield" D&D's attack/AC, Damage/HP system is simplisitc and outdated. 

Can't Win for Losing.


----------



## rabindranath72

Psion said:
			
		

> Mr. Epistomological here would call this an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy.



I am not trying to enforce any "ipse dixit" attitude. But since, it seems, numbers are also what we are speaking about, then to everyone its own 

Best regards,
Antonio Eleuteri


----------



## mcrow

buzz said:
			
		

> This is the most creative definition of "lite" I have yet seen in this thread. Even classifying HARP as "lite" would be a massive stretch.





Yeah, Rolemaster (chartmaster) being rules lite is waaaaay out there. Now Harp is a very good system, but not a light system. Harp light though comes close to fitting in the light rules description, but not quite.


----------



## fredramsey

Man. It's getting hard to remember which site I'm on: enworld or rpg.net...


----------



## Psion

fredramsey said:
			
		

> Man. It's getting hard to remember which site I'm on: enworld or rpg.net...




The RPGnet argument is hacking on Mearls' predictions more than Ryan's disdain for rules light games.

and, RPGnet is blue.


----------



## mearls

Psion said:
			
		

> Not sure I know what you are getting at, but I'd be interested in what you have to say.




I've had trouble myself putting my thoughts together on this. This is a sort of first crack at it.

In RPGs, the interface is the "mental space" that exists between the player and the game. So, miniatures and battlemats are an element of the interface. It's easier for me to make a decision and apply the rules if I can see where my sorcerer is in relation to the terrain, monsters, and the rest of the party.

I think there are a lot of issues with the interface in D&D. To extend the above example, I can see where my character is but can I easily "see" and understand all his options - cast a spell, make an attack, try to trip a foe, and so forth. By the same token, when making a character can I "see" and understand the feats, spells, skills, and so forth that I can choose from to build my PC?

That step, that act of recognizing, understanding, and using the options within the rules deals wtih the game's interface. I'm increasingly convinced that the interface is the most important part of an RPG, because the act of choosing and employing an option is the act of playing the game.

I think this is related to the false light v. heavy dichotomy in that when people say, "I want a system that creates a 20th-level NPC in 20 minutes" that has nothing to do with the number of rules present, but rather the time and effort it takes to interface with a particular set of rules.


----------



## diaglo

der_kluge said:
			
		

> Well, I can see your point, but there are just so many other little things in 3rd edition that don't exist in ... OD&D - the myriad spells, and things like DR, or counterspelling which can complicate combat.



say what?

that was in OD&D. you just had to have the right group.

i cast light. NPC casts Darkness.

i cast Tittle's Taunting tongue.


i strike the werewolf with my steel sword. now the Ogre strikes the werewolf.


----------



## Gentlegamer

mearls said:
			
		

> In RPGs, the interface is the "mental space" that exists between the player and the game. So, miniatures and battlemats are an element of the interface. It's easier for me to make a decision and apply the rules if I can see where my sorcerer is in relation to the terrain, monsters, and the rest of the party.



. . . and the game regresses back into a tabletop miniatures wargame.


----------



## rabindranath72

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> That's completely beside the point, though, isn't it? Or did you read my response to your post? Your problem is amply illustrated in the other part of what I quoted. You make connections and conclusions that aren't there and aren't true, stir in ridiculous hyperbolic statements and anecdotal evidence, and then try to make some point about your statistical credentials. Since your entire argument is based on non-statistical anecdotes and hyperbole, I don't care if you're a freakin' mentat -- it has no bearing on the conversation at hand.



When I speak of "about an hour", I mean precisely that. It is a number. And it is borne of experience. Since (it seems) you are vastly better than me (less than five minutes on average), then kudos to you. 
But my experience is as much valid as yours.
That's why my 3e books now take dust.

My whole point was simply to respond to the seemingly "scientific" answer of Mr. Dancey. As my (and tons of others) experiences prove the contrary, then something is amiss. And since we were speaking about "scientific" answers, I reported my experience on the field, which I had the "luck" of assessing statistically. And, I repeat, since I am not the only one who has thrown 3e out of the window, something is amiss with the system.
As someone wrote before, and I tend to agree on this, it may well be the case of a "bad interface design".

kindest regards,
Antonio Eleuteri


----------



## mcrow

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> . . . and the game regresses back into a tabletop miniatures wargame.




Exactly what I don't like about D&D/d20.


----------



## fredramsey

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> . . . and the game regresses back into a tabletop miniatures wargame.




Hmm. I agree with most of what you say, but "regresses" just casts a negative light on an aspect of gaming a lot of people enjoy. Not too many brownie points for that one.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> (A good rule of thumb for any student of RPG design - frame a question about RPGs in terms of other game forms. I think that's a useful tool to burrow into whether a question is important or a red herring.)




Sweet, I graduated that class!   



> That step, that act of recognizing, understanding, and using the options within the rules deals wtih the game's interface. I'm increasingly convinced that the interface is the most important part of an RPG, because the act of choosing and employing an option is the act of playing the game.
> 
> I think this is related to the false light v. heavy dichotomy in that when people say, "I want a system that creates a 20th-level NPC in 20 minutes" that has nothing to do with the number of rules present, but rather the time and effort it takes to interface with a particular set of rules.




Yeah, my experience has been the same. Rules that you don't use and that get forgotten about are not successful interfaces -- they fall by the wayside. Likewise, rules that take too long to use, increase the distance between player and game, and also get trotted out as "bad fun." Too many choices with different mechanics, and some people do get overwhelmed, and then go looking for something simpler, with less choices, with similar mechanics.

I would, however, say that the essence of playing a game is making a choice, given random limitations on what you can choose. The game is in the random limitations and trying to make the best out of them -- drawing cards, rolling dice, "passing the torch" in a more narrative RPG -- the choice should have meaning within the limitations that random chance and previous choices have set up.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> . . . and the game regresses back into a tabletop miniatures wargame.




A. Your (B) does not necessarily follow Mearls' (A), nor is he (as far as I can see) necessarily implying that minis or a battlemat are an intrinsic part of a good RPG interface.  They're an example.

B. Even if it did and he did, 'regression' is arbitrary in this context.  Some gamers might prefer that course.

C. You did, however, take my advice about dropping the video game argument in favor of the miniatures one.  Kupo!


----------



## diaglo

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> . . . and the game regresses back into a tabletop miniatures wargame.



it never left.


----------



## mearls

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Yeah, my experience has been the same. Rules that you don't use and that get forgotten about are not successful interfaces -- they fall by the wayside. Likewise, rules that take too long to use, increase the distance between player and game, and also get trotted out as "bad fun." Too many choices with different mechanics, and some people do get overwhelmed, and then go looking for something simpler, with less choices, with similar mechanics.




Precisely! Each player or group has a different threshold for options or complexity in the decisions - some people like Settlers, some people like Puerto Rico. The interesting thing is when you look at how complex a rule *should* be. In D&D, it makes sense that combat has a number of options - it's an important part of the game. But is a trip attack more complicated than it should be? What about attacks of opportunity?

Your thoughts on choice are dead on, particularly in relation to meaning. To rewind a little, the difference between attempting a trip and a normal attack should have meaning - one should not always be better than the other. However, D&D adds an added layer of meaning to this choice in that I can make one option better by building my character in a certain way. One choice might be better in most circumstances for a specific character, but I have to spend my "resources" (attributes, feats, and so on) to create that situation.


----------



## Psion

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> . . . and the game regresses back into a tabletop miniatures wargame.




Gee, prejudicial language much?

Anywhosier, I see where he is coming from, but would put forth that different people relate to the game in different ways. My wife can totally not relate to the "in character interactions" aspect of RPGs -- she just can't make the transition, picture the action. But the battlemat, she likes, because it helps her picture the situation.

Me, I find the battlemat a facilitation to be dispensed with when not needed -- I much prefer to describe the action. I don't like that 3.5 pushed the game towards being more about the battlemat than having the battlemat be a mere facilitation.


----------



## Gentlegamer

fredramsey said:
			
		

> Hmm. I agree with most of what you say, but "regresses" just casts a negative light on an aspect of gaming a lot of people enjoy. Not too many brownie points for that one.



What else would you call basically taking "D&D" back to the Chainmail man-to-man fantasy supplement (circa 1972)?


----------



## eyebeams

Psion said:
			
		

> For being irrelevant to the thread, lots of people sure seem interested in it.




And they too are questioning what choosing a smattering of spells has to do with :making spellcasting characters," which is more than that.



> Of course, considering up thread you decide that people are "playing suckier games than they admit", you appear to be in the habit of speaking for others, which you really need not do. I am sure people can make their own decisions. If you find it irrelevant to you, feel free to not comment.




Yes yes, I'm sure everyone is a unqiue snowflake. Unfortunately, we all need to make assumptions to have a basis to communicate at all. I myself find my conclusions less than palatable, but I still think they're accurate.



> The topic/sentence being addressed was that making spellcasting characters takes lots more time than non-spellcasting characters. I addressed that statement directly with some real proof.




No, real proof would involve making a spellcasting character.



> Do you dislike the actual results of the experiment so much you feel the need to wave it off?




No, because an experiment would involve making both a spellcasting and a nonspellcasting character, not just picking a load of spells.


----------



## diaglo

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> What else would you call basically taking "D&D" back to the Chainmail man-to-man fantasy supplement (circa 1972)?




like i said. it never left

diaglo "still playing with Chainmail rules in OD&D" Ooi


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

mearls said:
			
		

> Precisely! Each player or group has a different threshold for options or complexity in the decisions - some people like Settlers, some people like Puerto Rico. The interesting thing is when you look at how complex a rule *should* be. In D&D, it makes sense that combat has a number of options - it's an important part of the game. But is a trip attack more complicated than it should be? What about attacks of opportunity?




The 'should' in this case means targeting the broadest possible appeal, no?  Or at least the broadest appeal within the subset of the gaming community the product is targeted to?

So, for example, if most superhero RPG fans prefer lighter rules, then the complexity *should* be lower for superhero RPGs.  And the inverse for sci-fi, if the majority of sci-fi RPG fans (we few, we unhappy few!) prefer more complex rules.



			
				mearls said:
			
		

> Your thoughts on choice are dead on, particularly in relation to meaning. To rewind a little, the difference between attempting a trip and a normal attack should have meaning - one should not always be better than the other. However, D&D adds an added layer of meaning to this choice in that I can make one option better by building my character in a certain way. One choice might be better in most circumstances for a specific character, but I have to spend my "resources" (attributes, feats, and so on) to create that situation.




Yeah, tripping is always better unless you specifically build a character to deal monstrously large amounts of damage.   Seriously, I can't say how many trip attacks NPCs have used to deadly effect... some of the players have even _started_ to catch on...


----------



## The Shaman

Turanil said:
			
		

> You mean fredramsey's?



I didn't really have anyone in particular in mind - swing it as you see fit.


----------



## fredramsey

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> What else would you call basically taking "D&D" back to the Chainmail man-to-man fantasy supplement (circa 1972)?




"I feel that all the focus on miniatures and battlemats takes away from the role-playing aspects of the game (which I like) and puts too much emphasis on tactics, which makes it seem too much like a wargame."

While I am FAR from being the least inflammatory in my word choice, it does affect the way people take what you are saying...


----------



## rabindranath72

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Sweet, I graduated that class!
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, my experience has been the same. Rules that you don't use and that get forgotten about are not successful interfaces -- they fall by the wayside. Likewise, rules that take too long to use, increase the distance between player and game, and also get trotted out as "bad fun." Too many choices with different mechanics, and some people do get overwhelmed, and then go looking for something simpler, with less choices, with similar mechanics.
> 
> I would, however, say that the essence of playing a game is making a choice, given random limitations on what you can choose. The game is in the random limitations and trying to make the best out of them -- drawing cards, rolling dice, "passing the torch" in a more narrative RPG -- the choice should have meaning within the limitations that random chance and previous choices have set up.




Fact is, that Role Playing being the goal (and not simply "playing a game", in which there must be clear-cut rules to define who wins and who doesn't), I "found" that the same goal could be reached with other systems other than 3e. 
I play D&D in all its forms since the first 80's. And I played all along until 3e came out. It seemed like a good system (where for good I mean: a system which satisfies my expectations). But after using it for about two years, I realized that I was not going much further in my RPG experience than when I played Classic D&D. There were tons of choices, but those choices had a cost: time.
Time spent on the rules, not on the game. Some people like it, I too like "rules heavy" simulations game (like World in Flames, where a single game can last 30 or 40 hours), the problem is that World in Flames is not an RPG. 
For me (and many others) the objective of an RPG is to Roleplay, not to get lost in tons of details, tactics and so on. Some may like it, some not. But considering that an RPG is mostly a social interaction game, where some sort of "interpretation" of the Real World (or similar) must be assessed, it turns out that the tons of rules to define a game system, can also be "decided" on the spot. Our view of the Real World helps us. So, can I decide that a normal person cannot lift an horse on his head without consulting a table?

In the end, to everyone its own. 
For me, I decided that the goal of RolePlaying, I could achieve by playing Basic D&D. And with it, in 10 minutes I create an NPC: 3 minutes for the rules, 7 minutes for an interesting story.

Best regards,
Antonio


----------



## Psion

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Yes yes, I'm sure everyone is a unqiue snowflake. Unfortunately, we all need to make assumptions to have a basis to communicate at all. I myself find my conclusions less than palatable, but I still think they're accurate.




Of course you do.



> No, real proof would involve making a spellcasting character.




And why would that be? The activity that was posited to take time was selecting spells. I was illustrating that. If you think that's somehow irrelevant, then I posit to you that the burden is on you to tell me why that is not significant. What factor am I missing that is going to bloat the time up so?

Edit: I'll even go so far to assert that activities-other-than-spell-selection, the creation of a spellcaster is less time intensive. A spellcaster has less in the way of stacking and tabulation of bonuses than a fighter type, and excepting bards have less in the way of skill point allotment than a rogue, bard, or ranger.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> What else would you call basically taking "D&D" back to the Chainmail man-to-man fantasy supplement (circa 1972)?




Sadly, I've never played the original Chainmail.

However, I'm willing to bet that it was a heck of a lot simpler than D&D - as basically all miniatures wargames, from Warhammer to War Gods to Warmachine to Confrontation to the short-lived New Chainmail to the assorted clicky games are.

In fact, many of those games would make find rules-lite combat systems for an RPG.

Either way, becoming more of a tabletop wargame is in no way 'taking D&D back to Chainmail.'  Nor does the presence of tactics and strategy imply that the game is, in fact, a tabletop wargame.


----------



## Gentlegamer

mearls said:
			
		

> Your thoughts on choice are dead on, particularly in relation to meaning. To rewind a little, the difference between attempting a trip and a normal attack should have meaning - one should not always be better than the other. However, D&D adds an added layer of meaning to this choice in that I can make one option better by building my character in a certain way. One choice might be better in most circumstances for a specific character, but I have to spend my "resources" (attributes, feats, and so on) to create that situation.



You are presupposing that tactical combat AKA detailed combat is what should be in the RPG.


----------



## Remathilis

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> . . . and the game regresses back into a tabletop miniatures wargame.




Wait, Wait. This... Is... A... Bad... Thing...?

Remathilis "I don't need minis to role-play a shopkeeper" Ooi.


----------



## rabindranath72

Psion said:
			
		

> Gee, prejudicial language much?
> 
> Anywhosier, I see where he is coming from, but would put forth that different people relate to the game in different ways. My wife can totally not relate to the "in character interactions" aspect of RPGs -- she just can't make the transition, picture the action. But the battlemat, she likes, because it helps her picture the situation.
> 
> Me, I find the battlemat a facilitation to be dispensed with when not needed -- I much prefer to describe the action. I don't like that 3.5 pushed the game towards being more about the battlemat than having the battlemat be a mere facilitation.




WotC had to sell more minis, do not forget 
Luckily for them, they have lots of clients.

Best regards,
Antonio Eleuteri


----------



## The Shaman

mearls said:
			
		

> ISo I think the pertinent question isn't "Is rules light or heavy better?" - the answer there is "No." The real question is, "Why does the rules *bloated* bring out such emotional responses, why do people get so defensive about it, why is there a knee jerk reaction towards it?" That's the question you need to ask, and that's where the path to figuring out why the "industry" is so messed up begins. Half of the act of RPG design is hacking through all the misconceptions, malformed conventional wisdom, and backwards thinking that clogs the "industry's" arteries.



Fixed that for you.

The people I know who collect records by obscure bands generally don't collect them because they're obscure, or to buck a trend - they buy them because the albums speak to their personal muse. I would say that something similar is at work in gaming.

Speaking of these people in a dismissive or pejorative tone, as if they somehow "don't get it," does nothing to enhance the credibility of your argument.


----------



## Remathilis

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> You are presupposing that tactical combat AKA detailed combat is what should be in the RPG.




Well jeez, I don't even need a CHARACTER SHEET  to role-play, except of the possiblity of combat breaking out...


----------



## Desdichado

rabindranath72 said:
			
		

> My whole point was simply to respond to the seemingly "scientific" answer of Mr. Dancey. As my (and tons of others) experiences prove the contrary, then something is amiss. And since we were speaking about "scientific" answers, I reported my experience on the field, which I had the "luck" of assessing statistically. And, I repeat, since I am not the only one who has thrown 3e out of the window, something is amiss with the system.



No, you haven't assessed *anything* scientifically.  You've said that his experiments are not scientific, which while likely true, you can't actually *know* because very little of his experimental methods have been described.  You then proceeded to add in your own anecdotal evidence, and seemingly claim that your experience is a valid sample size to extrapoliate for the entire population--which as a statistician you should know better than to do--and said, "trust me, I'm a statistician."  All this despite the fact that no evidence of any statistical or experimental studies or analysis *you've* done have been at all forthcoming.

You're own posts have been considerably *less* scientific than anything Dancey has said, so you've done a very poor job of convincing anyone that your "credentials" have any bearing on anything, or that your "arguments" are any more compelling that anything anyone else has said on the topic.


----------



## rabindranath72

Psion said:
			
		

> Of course you do.
> 
> 
> 
> And why would that be? The activity that was posited to take time was selecting spells. I was illustrating that. If you think that's somehow irrelevant, then I posit to you that the burden is on you to tell me why that is not significant. What factor am I missing that is going to bloat the time up so?




More or less yours was an indirect answer to my statement that creating an high level character takes "a bit" of time. If you set out to prove that this is not true, you were only half way. Choosing spells is just the tip of the iceberg. I guess this is what the other posters are saying.


----------



## Psion

rabindranath72 said:
			
		

> WotC had to sell more minis, do not forget




Trust me, I didn't.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Well jeez, I don't even need a CHARACTER SHEET  to role-play, except of the possiblity of combat breaking out...



Do you know what tactical combat is?  Combat is part of fantasy role-playing.  Tactical combat is not required.


----------



## fredramsey

(And, in the end)

Main Entry: opin·ion 
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
2 a : *belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge* b : a generally held view
3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
- opin·ioned/ adjective

synonyms OPINION, VIEW, BELIEF, CONVICTION, PERSUASION, SENTIMENT mean a judgment one holds as true. OPINION implies *a conclusion thought out yet open to dispute* <each expert seemed to have a different opinion>. VIEW suggests a subjective opinion <very assertive in stating his views>. BELIEF implies often deliberate acceptance and intellectual assent <a firm belief in her party's platform>. CONVICTION applies to a firmly and seriously held belief <the conviction that animal life is as sacred as human>. PERSUASION suggests a belief grounded on assurance (as by evidence) of its truth <was of the persuasion that everything changes>. SENTIMENT suggests a settled opinion reflective of one's feelings <her feminist sentiments are well-known>.


----------



## Psion

rabindranath72 said:
			
		

> More or less yours was an indirect answer to my statement that creating an high level character takes "a bit" of time. If you set out to prove that this is not true, you were only half way. Choosing spells is just the tip of the iceberg. I guess this is what the other posters are saying.




Really? I thought they were just nitpicking. 

Y'see, Curtis (I beleive) put forth that it's not so long _except for spellcasters_. I think he was being reasonable. I was just trying to take the examination from there, from what was already accepted by someone I considered was being reasonable.

I feel no great need to invest more time in what is already being accepted by folks that I consider are being reasonable about the issue.


----------



## buzz

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> . . . and the game regresses back into a tabletop miniatures wargame.



Where's the little eye-rolling emoticon when you need it?


----------



## RFisher

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Whereas I, on the other hand, introduced my smallish children to roleplaying games with The Window, which is equally non-complex, and I'd recommend a similar set-up to any RPG novice.  And I did it without using fancy words like orthogonal (what's wrong with perpendicular, anyway?)



Is "orthogonal" a fancy word? Maybe it's just that it is commonly used among one of my other interests. "Perpendicular" doesn't strike me as particularly less fancy.

For some reason the Window has never grabbed my interest despite many attempts to read it. Did you GM for them?

I think there's a real derth of products to introduce people to the hobby whether rules-light or rules-heavy. I have a nephew who lives too far away for me to mentor him, & I haven't found anything that I really think would be a good gift to introduce him to roleplaying.


----------



## Mythmere1

Well, in one sense, Mr. Dancey's comment doesn't need commentary - he's betting money on it and we'll see if his research was right in the sales numbers, which is the measure that he himself uses.

I think it's odd to see people defending either rules-lite or rules-heavy in the context of D&D (either edition wars or with Castles & Crusades involved) - some people just have a rules-heavy preference or a rules-lite preference, and it seems that lots of factors go into the preference.  Consistency, prep time, the mode of interaction between the GM and the players, etc.

Everyone seems to be more tolerant of those who play very different systems (ie., the rules-heavy players looking at someone who doesn't even roll dice might be befuddled, but the two systems are so different that it's clear there's a completely different approach to gaming going on).  On the other hand, when you've got people posting about games that are pretty similar, the attacks get heated.  Witness the virulence of some of the debates about Castles & Crusades, which is very similar to D&D.  I think people feel threatened by similar games in a way that they aren't threatened by totally different systems.

I play Castles & Crusades, and don't personally like the 3e approach, but I think it's very difficult to compare the games for quality - and when you do, you can't make a quality comparison based on whether it's light or heavy - gauging the quality of rules isn't done by reference to other systems, it's how well the game works for what it is.  An apple tastes good or bad compared to other apples, not bad because it doesn't taste like an orange.  

Although Castles & Crusades is highly similar to D&D, it's designed around a very different mechanism - with a broad brush, I'll say that the C&C design philosophy is to cover all situations with general rules of application that are interpreted by the GM.  Modern D&D strives to present players with more specific rules so that there is less interpretation required.  With these different approaches, although the games seem similar at face value, they are - to continue my metaphor - apples and oranges.  You can evaluate each game in terms of whether it stumbles somewhere within its own level of complexity, but you can't really use complexity as the benchmark for comparing one game to the other.  They're designed to be different in that respect.

I love Castles & Crusades, but that doesn't make me think 3e players are playing an inferior game - just a game that I don't like playing as much as C&C.  Problem is, if I list my subjective reasons for preferring C&C, it sounds like a list of things that D&D fails, rather than a list of gaming preferences.  War results.  On the other hand, if I'm playing a diceless RPG in which the players are all playing the role of wombats, hurling cats into the air for random determination of results, no one will take my preference for this game as a slam against D&D.  They'll just "tsk, tsk" quietly to themselves and click me onto the "ignore" list.


----------



## BryonD

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> You are presupposing that tactical combat AKA detailed combat is what should be in the RPG.



Well, being as the conversation stated with the topic being specifically about economically viable RPGs, this is a very safe and well founded supposition.


----------



## Gentlegamer

BryonD said:
			
		

> Well, being as the conversation stated with the topic being specifically about economically viable RPGs, this is a very safe and well founded supposition.



(A)D&D was an economically viable game for over 20 years without tactical (detailed) combat.


----------



## buzz

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> You are presupposing that tactical combat AKA detailed combat is what should be in the RPG.



And you're making the assumption that it's inherrently a bad thing.

Mearls is talking specifically about D&D, and D&D presents combat as being a very important element. Ergo, the rules regarding it will tend toward detail. If it's important and merits detail, then, yes, some sort of mapping accessory will prove extremely useful. It has absolutely nothing to do with "regressing into a miniatures wargame".

It's funny how often "just a glorified miniatures wargame" gets trotted out as a synonym for "I don't like this RPG".


----------



## Gentlegamer

buzz said:
			
		

> Where's the little eye-rolling emoticon when you need it?



It's at the "text lite" messageboard.


----------



## fredramsey

BryonD said:
			
		

> Well, being as the conversation stated with the topic being specifically about economically viable RPGs, this is a very safe and well founded supposition.




Wow.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

'Designing' a *role-playing experience* is pointless; if it's not 'cops and robbers with a GM,' it's not far from it.  There's nothing wrong with that, and I've personally enjoyed some very rules-lite "games" - but at their core, they are not games, they are not designable, and they really don't need rules, only maturity and trust in the GM.

You also can't sell them, because a person would have to be incredibly foolish to buy a set of rules that essentially said nothing but 'use your imagination' - and a person foolish enough to buy such 'rules' would almost certainly lack the maturity and wit to play the resulting game.  Although, they're clearly gullible enough to trust any GM...  

Designing a *game* (the category of entertainment of which role-playing games are a subset) to be rules-lite, rules-heavy or somewhere in between is valid and necessary.

How detailed should a particular *game* be?  What detail level is most marketable?  What level are the game's designers comfortable with?  What level are they competent to design for?

Risk and Axis and Allies both model world-spanning military engagements; both are enjoyable games, at least to the subsets they appeal to; their detail level is quite different.

Final Fantasy 7 and Baldur's Gate are both best-selling electronic games; both are enjoyable to the subsets they appeal to; their detail level is quite different.

Once you've established a detail level, there's still plenty of design to do.

Is the game competitve or cooperative or somewhere in between?  Single player tournament Magic the Gathering is completely competitive.  The original Heroquest was partly competitve, partly cooperative.  Basketball is competitve between teams, semi-competitive between players, hopefully cooperative within each team.  D&D is largely cooperative, with slight competitive undertones.

How important is balance?  In a competitive game?  Absolute balance may not be necessary, or even a goal to aspire to: Hawks vs. Pistons isn't balanced in NBA basketball, for instance.  In a cooperative game?  Some balance may be necessary.  Or maybe not.  If so, why?

Say you decide on a highly detailed, largely cooperative, carefully balanced experience.  How do you make that experience as fast and, more importantly, as *intuitive* as it can be without losing the three elements you've already selected?

That's *game* design, and it applies to RPGs as well as other types of games.


----------



## rabindranath72

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> No, you haven't assessed *anything* scientifically.  You've said that his experiments are not scientific, which while likely true, you can't actually *know* because very little of his experimental methods have been described. You then proceeded to add in your own anecdotal evidence, and seemingly claim that your experience is a valid sample size to extrapoliate for the entire population--which as a statistician you should know better than to do--and said, "trust me, I'm a statistician." All this despite the fact that no evidence of any statistical or experimental studies or analysis *you've* done have been at all forthcoming.
> 
> You're own posts have been considerably *less* scientific than anything Dancey has said, so you've done a very poor job of convincing anyone that your "credentials" have any bearing on anything, or that your "arguments" are any more compelling that anything anyone else has said on the topic.




Sorry for my bad english, it is not my home language. That is why I suppose I did not explain well my point.

1) Mr Dancey WROTE that rules light games are "worse" than rules heavy games, and cited taking some measurements and so on. My point was that, SINCE THERE ARE LOTS OF PLAYERS OUT THERE THAT CAN PROVE OTHERWISE, his assertions could not be taken scientifically as they sounded.

2) I HAVE WRITTEN, if you take care to read the posts above, that in MY EXPERIENCE, AND IN THOSE OF MANY OTHERS, CREATING AN HIGH LEVEL CHARACTER can be time consuming. AND I AM NOT EXTRAPOLATING ANYTHING, if you mind reading my post CAREFULLY. 
I have simply proof of the contrary of what Mr. Dancey (and you, I suppose) is saying. Which IS NOT extrapolating anything, but simply stating that part of the population does not satisfy certain assumptions. And THESE, I can prove (expected values, confidence tests and so on).

3) I do not have to convince anyone. I always assume people is intelligent enough to take informed decisions on what it reads. If you feel the contrary, then I apologize. Or you did not read carefully my posts.

4) Since I always close my posts with greets, just to signify that the discussion can be held on civil tones, and that we are not talking about "serious" topics such as hunger in the world or religion, I would STRONGLY appreciate that you do the same and show a bit of politeness. Otherwise, I will not bother to answer to your posts, since your replies qualify you.

Best regards,
Antonio Eleuteri

P.S.
If it cares, I did not create (or make create) tens of characters just for the sake of it. I am writing an article with some colleague psychologists about roleplaying games, mental constructs, and freeform playing.


----------



## buzz

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> (A)D&D was an economically viable game for over 20 years without tactical (detailed) combat.



In what universe? My 1e DMG had battlemap diagrams for facing and gave most measurements in inches. The listed turn sequence alone screamed "wargame".

Granted, the rules were convoluted enough that I don't think most people used them, ergo why all most of us remember is rolling to hit and checking a table.


----------



## Gentlegamer

buzz said:
			
		

> And you're making the assumption that it's inherrently a bad thing.



No, I'm not.  His first example of a great interface was a description of tactical combat using miniatures.  This assumes that such a thing is good in an RPG in general, and good in the d20 System in particular.  The use of tactical combat in an RPG is fine.  It depends on the genre and style of the overall system.  GURPS has tactical combat (in fact, it seems like much of it was borrowed for _Combat & Tactics_, the precurser to the d20 combat system).  Pointing it out as a postive interface in an RPG is assuming that it belongs there in the first place, without considering other factors.


> Mearls is talking specifically about D&D, and D&D presents combat as being a very important element. Ergo, the rules regarding it will tend toward detail. If it's important and merits detail, then, yes, some sort of mapping accessory will prove extremely useful. It has absolutely nothing to do with "regressing into a miniatures wargame".



(A)D&D had combat as an important (but not the most important) element, and did not require miniatures at all, because it didn't use tactical, detailed combat.  It would seem Mearls would point out that it lacked an important interface, or that it missed the boat to provide one for players, because he is presupposing that it should be there to begin with.


> It's funny how often "just a glorified miniatures wargame" gets trotted out as a synonym for "I don't like this RPG".



A spade is a spade.


----------



## Rasyr

mcrow said:
			
		

> Yeah, Rolemaster (chartmaster) being rules lite is waaaaay out there. Now Harp is a very good system, but not a light system. Harp light though comes close to fitting in the light rules description, but not quite.



Please note that *I* did not bring HARP into this discussion.

Please note also that in the post where I said RM was rules lite, and D&D was rules-heavy, that I said that those were just my opinions, AND I defined the criteria by which I had decided eash was so. According to the criteria I defined, my statement was accurate. However, according to the criteria that others may be use, it would not be accurate. Please keep that in mind.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> The people I know who collect records by obscure bands generally don't collect them because they're obscure, or to buck a trend - they buy them because the albums speak to their personal muse. I would say that something similar is at work in gaming.




Well, don't discount the possibility that the obscure bands speak to their personal muse simply because they are obscure bands. People have pretty seemingly arbitrary guidelines for what we like and what we don't. 



> Fact is, that Role Playing being the goal (and not simply "playing a game", in which there must be clear-cut rules to define who wins and who doesn't), I "found" that the same goal could be reached with other systems other than 3e.




This strikes me as *amazingly* obvious. If role-playing is your ultimate goal, congrats, you've been participating in a tradition as old as imagination itself. You don't need a *system* for role-playing. You just need to be a human being.

Fact is, Role Playing is only two-thirds of a Role Playing Game. And to assume that the game itself isn't important is to pretty much dismiss any RPG ever as trying to do something that doesn't need to be done. 

The Game is that interface by which player meets role. It's the added layer between what you say and what your imagination does. That added layer, for me and for millions, is fun. That's not to say that pure role-playing without the game isn't also fun, it's just saying that role-playing isn't the only reason we're playing a role playing game. We enjoy it, in part, because it IS a game.

The best-designed RPG will include only that which adds to the enjoyment of playing the role. For me, a lack of rules doesn't make it any more enjoyable to play the game, because it feels less and less like I'm playing a game and more and more like I'm just making up a story, which isn't the reason I play an RPG. At the same time, the rules can reach a point where they get more and more in the way of playing a role (stuff like Rolemaster or Harn, where mechanics are the point), and rolling on tables isn't the reason I play an RPG, either. D&D 3e has so far been the best middle ground I've found. It errs on the side of more rules, but it is always easier to simplify than it is to add complexity. It contains, for me, the best options to date for setting the parameters for playing a role and maintaining consistency (which is as important in poker or monopoly as it is in an RPG).

RPG's, as far as I am concerned, don't exist to help people role play. Human beings have been doing that independant of Gygax and d6's for their entire bloordy existence. You don't need a system to facilitate role-playing. The system must facilitate the game, in a way so as to add choices that are meaningful in trying to "win" (and despite conventional wisdom, RPG's aboslutely have a way to win and a way to loose). 

If some other system does it better for you, have fun. But I in no way have to respect that that system is somehow objectively "better" at chasing some ficticious ideal of what an RPG "should be." You enjoy chutes and ladders? Good! That doesn't mean that enjoying monopoly is wrong.


----------



## rabindranath72

Psion said:
			
		

> Really? I thought they were just nitpicking.
> 
> Y'see, Curtis (I beleive) put forth that it's not so long _except for spellcasters_. I think he was being reasonable. I was just trying to take the examination from there, from what was already accepted by someone I considered was being reasonable.
> 
> I feel no great need to invest more time in what is already being accepted by folks that I consider are being reasonable about the issue.




Hmm...except for spellcasters...so your 18 minutes are just a differential...
it remains to find the rest of the time then 
Do not worry investing time, lots of us did it and fortunately changed their minds 

Best regards,
Antonio Eleuteri


----------



## Rasyr

mearls said:
			
		

> In RPGs, the interface is the "mental space" that exists between the player and the game. So, miniatures and battlemats are an element of the interface. It's easier for me to make a decision and apply the rules if I can see where my sorcerer is in relation to the terrain, monsters, and the rest of the party.





			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> . . . and the game regresses back into a tabletop miniatures wargame.




Just as a side note - being more miniatures oriented is one of "predictions" that several people (including myself) have made regarding 4e if/when it comes....


----------



## eyebeams

> And why would that be? The activity that was posited to take time was selecting spells. I was illustrating that. If you think that's somehow irrelevant, then I posit to you that the burden is on you to tell me why that is not significant. What factor am I missing that is going to bloat the time up so?




That'd be the rest of the character, since players almost always pick spells in conjunction with their other traits, not in isolation from them.



> Edit: I'll even go so far to assert that activities-other-than-spell-selection, the creation of a spellcaster is less time intensive. A spellcaster has less in the way of stacking and tabulation of bonuses than a fighter type, and excepting bards have less in the way of skill point allotment than a rogue, bard, or ranger.




Well, that would involve actually making a character of each type, wouldn't it?


----------



## Silverleaf

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I think alot of people are forgetting what D&D 3.0 was trying to fix. Over the years, AD&D varied wildly based on HR, supplements, and DM perrogative. I might use just standard AD&D pummeling, but Bob uses the OA martial arts and Luke uses Combat and Tactics Unarmed Strikes, etc. There WAS no guideline to where a ghoul was an appropriate challenge for a 1st level PC, or that a giant was appropriate for a 10th. Or that +5 swords are for 16th level PCs. Or the cleric's power varied from nil (complete priests) to vastly (faiths and avatars). Or that the RPGA had a houserule and ban list miles long. Or that by design flaw thieves were weak and wizards ruled all at high levels. Or that elves WERE the best racial choice.




Well not much has changed in that respect.  Today there are hundreds of d20 publishers, and hence just as much diversity.  You still don't know what rules the DM next door is using, unless he limits himself to the 3 core books.  And even then house rules pop up, because that is the nature of the beast.  Everyone wants something different out of their campaign.  Even those who supposedly follow the rules put more emphasis on some aspects of them, and de-emphasize other aspects (eg, "yes we use AoO but we just eyeball them, and we don't have a battlemap" is a very different game than "we like the wargaming aspect and follow the combat rules to the letter and always use minis & battlemap").

BTW, there were guidelines for encounters in earlier editions.  They may have been looser than a specific CR number, but they were there nonetheless in the form of monster HD and "special" powers denoted with an asterisk.  It was a good bet that a 5** HD monster was going to be a tough encounter for low-level PC...  The rules also suggested placing X HD monsters on dungeon level X, and increasing or decreasing the number of monsters encountered if you placed them on higher or lower levels of the dungeon.  OTOH, wilderness enounters had no such guideline, and could be very dangerous or very easy.  But at the same time, a smart group of players knows when to attack, when to talk, and when to run.  Making every encounter balanced & winnable through battle, and precalculated to deplete X number of party resources is not my idea of what fantastic adventure is about...

In much the same manner, I don't see that having weak thieves or powerful wizards is a design flaw.  In fact, thieves aren't weak unless they try to go outside of their domain.  If they wanted to be good at fighting the player should have made a fighter instead.  He made a thief, that means he's going to play a character who uses stealth and guile (which "sneak" attacks aren't ) to his advantage rather than charging into battle.  The player who rolled up a magic-user knows that his character's chances of surviving past the first few levels are small, but it's a risk he's willing to take for the possibility of great power later on (should the campaign even last that long).  In that sense, the classes were balanced, and they all had their niche in which they excelled.  The much-touted alternative of making every class equal at overcoming challenges in battle feels very arbitrary to me, and much less fantastical.



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> As many have said, the biggest fault I have with Rules Lite is the "mother may I" syndrome. Mother, may I move and attack? (nah, he's too far). What about me (yeah, your closer, go ahead). Can I swing from the chandeleer? What about knock him off the balcony? Catch the falling phial? Without a rule to fall back on, the DM decides on the spot.




I run a quite rules-light B/X D&D game, and frankly this concept of "mother may I" is totally alien to me.  The players decide what action they're going to take, regardless of rules.  If the swashbuckler wants to jump from the balcony, swing from the chandelier and kick the BBEG, he's well entitled to try that.  Depending on the nature of the action, we'll use either a to-hit roll, ability check, or more rarely something else.  The other factor is the difficulty of the task, for which we'll adjust the roll.  It's a very simple 2-step process and it works very well in practice, at least that's been my experience throughout the last couple decades...


----------



## RFisher

buzz said:
			
		

> I think that rules "lite" can be successful as long as the game isn't also trying to be simulationist. In a simulationist game, a PC being able to jump a chasm possibly takes into account their Str, the width of the chasm, the amount of wind, whether the PC gets a running start, the surface being jumped onto, etc.



Why do you think a GM of a rules light system can't take all these factors & more into account when deciding the difficulty?


----------



## Gentlegamer

Rasyr said:
			
		

> Just as a side note - being more miniatures oriented is one of "predictions" that several people (including myself) have made regarding 4e if/when it comes....



Seems like the smart bet, considering the gaming industry has figured out how to get us to buy boosters of random miniatures . . .


----------



## diaglo

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> That doesn't mean that enjoying monopoly is wrong.



mang, you must play as one rat bastard tycoon then.

to me Monopoly is wrong. you are out to be cut throat and screw over your friends and family to achieve a Monopoly.

it is all wrong.


----------



## Ace

mearls said:
			
		

> I've had trouble myself putting my thoughts together on this. This is a sort of first crack at it.
> 
> SNIP
> 
> I think this is related to the false light v. heavy dichotomy in that when people say, "I want a system that creates a 20th-level NPC in 20 minutes" that has nothing to do with the number of rules present, but rather the time and effort it takes to interface with a particular set of rules.




This is an excellent point! 

One reason some folks do not like D&D3x or Hero or the like is "in play" rules overhead -- 

Time is spent referencing rules (few people have them memeorized enough that they never need the books) or worse implementing rules (Heros Phased Combat was slow IME) -- when the wanted to do Roleplay or Setting Exploration or some other thing 

 FREX if someone is playing D&D3x and the combat is not the main source of enjoyment what was meant to be a throw away ercounter can take a lot of time away from other things -- a combat (4 rounds) with 6 on the PC side and 12 on the opposing however balanced can take a long time at medium to high levels --  Even with extensive prep the sheer volume of options can bog down the game. This is great for a main course but if the combat isn't the reason for the game it can feel like a burden.

Now IMO at its roots 3x/d20 is not a rules heavy system -- almost everything you do is d20+mods and in actual play it is pretty fast -- skill check Roll d20 add the mods on your sheet meet the DC -- easy peasey 

What gives  the illusion of complexity are the myriad of rarely used subsystems (I have played or run in 5 3e campaigns and never seen a Bull Rush ) and the options that can mutate the battle field (Summon Monster is classic here) -- combat and prep in D&D are long -- the rest of the game is fast -- I would almost say --rules light 

Other systems cater to different styles -- I ran a large battle (12 Vampires in a fortified bunker vs the PC's) and the battle lasted less than 15 minutes real time -- GURPS light/expanded is this fast for me as well -- This allows more emphasis on different parts of the game  and makes a 6 hour session of mostly roleplay (The Holy Grail of some gamers) a distinct possibility

Also rules contribute to the feel of a game a lot more than you might think. 

Rules light FEELS  freer than D&D or other more restrictive systems -- its more than just a point buy vs. class level dichotmy -- It is a  matter of bringing ideas to the table -- 

Rules Light systems (good ones anyway) seem to grant more freedom (as an example Risus-- I can create a Flying Monkey Ninja Knight in seconds Flying Monkey 3d Ninja 3d Knight 4d) and leave the details to imagination  -- If I had  the right templates I could do this in D&D quickly as well -- race Flying Monkey Class -- Ninja Lx Fighter with X Feats Level X) but dealing with the baggage can be a hassle 

lets say you want to make a Wandering Scholar  in D&D core rules  -- you can take Bard, Rogue, or Wizard (or something odd) mainly -- each of these brings a package of goodies with it that may not fit  -- why does my Wandering scholar have a Murderous 5d Sneak Attack ? 
In Buffy I simply put X into Intelligence and X in Knowledge -- get the Nerd Trait and I am ready 

Even class based systems ike Castles and Crusades can seem to do better -- OK take Fighter nad make INT a prime -- you are a scholar 

Or even better Risus Scholar 4d Wanderer 3d Jack of trades 3d 

This is a huge asset in less structed play enviroments -- 

The actual play will seem more spot on the other systems without changing the parameters of the rules as written -- thats a substantial advantage for some and why Rules Lite has its perrenial fans 

I am also of the opinion that younger gamers (12 to say 24 maybe) want and need more rules. Not only do they often have (in case of the kids anyway) less social maturity and dispute resolution skills the type of game they need is different 

Younger kids want and need conflict resolution driven games like most D&D -- kick in the door-- kill the critter-- take stuff -- power up-- repeat is nearly an ideal set up for them. They also often have more time to play and prep  so the rules help them 

Gamers as their tastes change often find this model less satisfactory.

 Older gamers in particular (30+ ) often have less time or interest in the mechanical set up of games and many are able to handle a more complex social contract. 

The rules become an impediment to the FEEL of the desired game and sometimes the actual play as well


----------



## Gentlegamer

diaglo said:
			
		

> mang, you must play as one rat bastard tycoon then.
> 
> to me Monopoly is wrong. you are out to be cut throat and screw over your friends and family to achieve a Monopoly.
> 
> it is all wrong.



Kill them and take their stuff.


----------



## Psion

eyebeams said:
			
		

> Well, that would involve actually making a character of each type, wouldn't it?




Well, I've done it a fair few times, and as enthralling as this discussion is, I have work to do today. But I think I have a fairly good idea of what's involved in making a character, and feel it prudent to confine my illustration to that segment of character generation that I felt was a bit exagarated.


----------



## Desdichado

RFisher said:
			
		

> Is "orthogonal" a fancy word? Maybe it's just that it is commonly used among one of my other interests. "Perpendicular" doesn't strike me as particularly less fancy.



No words are fancy if you're used to them.  I get flakk all the time from my wife for my vocabulary--I sound high-falutin' all the time to her.   We still talk about the famous "hirsute" incident with her parents where I had to explain what hirsute meant and why I didn't just say "hairy."     Be that as it may, I learned perpendicular in middle school math, so I think it's reasonable to assume everyone knows that word.


			
				RFisher said:
			
		

> For some reason the Window has never grabbed my interest despite many attempts to read it. Did you GM for them?



I did, and I don't underestimate the nature of having a mentor kinda show them the way.  But that's not a failing of the Window's rules that it's not obvious what to do, I don't think.  That could be inserted as non-rule fluff if The Window were really serious about trying to be a real, rules-lite introduction into the hobby.

Which it's not--but IMO, it could be.


			
				RFisher said:
			
		

> I think there's a real derth of products to introduce people to the hobby whether rules-light or rules-heavy. I have a nephew who lives too far away for me to mentor him, & I haven't found anything that I really think would be a good gift to introduce him to roleplaying.



I agree 100%.  With the possible exception of getting old BD&D boxed sets off of Ebay.


----------



## rabindranath72

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Fact is, Role Playing is only two-thirds of a Role Playing Game. And to assume that the game itself isn't important is to pretty much dismiss any RPG ever as trying to do something that doesn't need to be done.



What a precise fraction! I never assumed that the game is not important. It is HOW the rules stand in the way of RolePlaying.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> D&D 3e has so far been the best middle ground I've found. It errs on the side of more rules, but it is always easier to simplify than it is to add complexity. It contains, for me, the best options to date for setting the parameters for playing a role and maintaining consistency (which is as important in poker or monopoly as it is in an RPG).



That you have found. And this is nice. But others may prefer it more freeform. That was the point of my post. I simply find that Classic D&D does the same job that 3e does.
Which is not to imply that anyone who plays 3e is wrong. 
It is much more simply that, given my objectives, it is not good.

Cheers,
Antonio Eleuteri


----------



## I'm A Banana

> That you have found. And this is nice. But others may prefer it more freeform. That was the point of my post. I simply find that Classic D&D does the same job that 3e does.
> Which is not to imply that anyone who plays 3e is wrong.
> It is much more simply that, given my objectives, it is not good.




Which is fine, but this talk of "rules-heavy games are for children!" (not by you, certainly) seems to ignore what I said.


----------



## buzz

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> His first example of a great interface was a description of tactical combat using miniatures.



What he said was:



			
				mearls said:
			
		

> In RPGs, the interface is the "mental space" that exists between the player and the game. So, miniatures and battlemats are an element of the interface. It's easier for me to make a decision and apply the rules if I can see where my sorcerer is in relation to the terrain, monsters, and the rest of the party.



AFAICT, he's speaking in a D&D context, and in a D&D context, minis and mat are part of the "interface", and they certianly do make it easier to apply the D&D RAW.

At no point did he say that minis+mat was an example of a "great interface", or that they inherrently made for a superior interface.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> (A)D&D had combat as an important (but not the most important) element,



I think this is pretty debatable. Combat has always been a central element of D&D. I mean, we're talking about the game that spawned the term "hack n' slash".



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> and did not require miniatures at all, because it didn't use tactical, detailed combat.



Ditto. See my comment above on most of the distances in 1e being in inches.



			
				Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> It would seem Mearls would point out that it lacked an important interface, or that it missed the boat to provide one for players, because he is presupposing that it should be there to begin with.



Nope. See above. Mearls is not addressing previous editions of D&D, nor is he stating that, e.g., people should start using minis to play _Unknown Armies_.


----------



## Turanil

I foresee closure of this thread very soon.


----------



## fredramsey

buzz said:
			
		

> Ditto. See my comment above on most of the distances in 1e being in inches.




Never used minis in 1e. Why? There was no *tactical* movement rate. None, nada.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> (A)D&D had combat as an important (but not the most important) element




-snip-

Not the most important element?

I suppose having one class explicitly devoted to combat (Fighter) with absolutely no other abilities within the contex of the rules, two variants of that class (Ranger and Paladin), several specific mechanics that applied solely or almost solely to combat (AC, hit points and THAC0), great heaping gobs of spells whose primary purpose was combat (from _magic missile_ on up), clerics who were explicitly warrior-priests, separate and extensive sections for weapons and armor that outweighed the sections for all non-combat gear, NO non-combat skills whatsoever until 2e (and those were optional!), and monsters whose abilities made them unsuitable for anything BUT combat made combat "not the most important element" of AD&D.

 :\


----------



## radferth

diaglo said:
			
		

> to me Monopoly is wrong. you are out to be cut throat and screw over your friends and family to achieve a Monopoly.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Well, I was going to do those things anyway, so why not make a game out of it.  Of course, I am speaking theoretically here, as my dad always wins at Monopoly.  Every game we all know he is going to get the light orange monopoly and kick us all.  Every game we resolve not to let him. Every game "Well, Dan, for St. James Place with 4 houses you owe me...".  On second thought, Diaglo is right, Monopoly is wrong.


----------



## Desdichado

rabindranath72 said:
			
		

> Sorry for my bad english, it is not my home language. That is why I suppose I did not explain well my point.



Your English has been perfectly fine; but your arguments have been less than clear.


			
				rabindranath72 said:
			
		

> 1) Mr Dancey WROTE that rules light games are "worse" than rules heavy games, and cited taking some measurements and so on. My point was that, SINCE THERE ARE LOTS OF PLAYERS OUT THERE THAT CAN PROVE OTHERWISE, his assertions could not be taken scientifically as they sounded.



WRONG!  Dancey said no such thing.  Go back and reread what he did say.  He AT NO POINT made any claim that even closely resembles that.  He also made no great claims for "scientificness" of his claims -- he merely said that based on some observation of his, his opinion was that the stated benefit of rules lite games (saving time; faster pace) is not realized.


			
				rabindranath72 said:
			
		

> 2) I HAVE WRITTEN, if you take care to read the posts above, that in MY EXPERIENCE, AND IN THOSE OF MANY OTHERS, CREATING AN HIGH LEVEL CHARACTER can be time consuming. AND I AM NOT EXTRAPOLATING ANYTHING, if you mind reading my post CAREFULLY.



Yes, you did.  You didn't clarify that IN YOUR EXPERIENCE stuff until I called you on it, and now you're trying to say that's what you were doing all along.  You made statements about 3e that were anecdotal and specific to YOU and YOUR CONDITION, but initially at least, presented them as irrefutable facts.  You tried to exclude 3e from being rules lite by a number of criteria, that I disputed, saying that FOR ME, 3e is rules lite by your criteria.

In addition, your WHOLE POINT in bringing up your scientific credentials was to discredit anything Dancey said, by showing that you know more about statistics then he did, and that his "experiment" wasn't scientific.  HOWEVER, since Dancey never claimed that it was, and your own experiences, as I pointed out several times, were even less scientific in spite of your claimed expertise, I'm _still_ questioning what the point of bringing that up was supposed to be.


> I have simply proof of the contrary of what Mr. Dancey (and you, I suppose) is saying. Which IS NOT extrapolating anything, but simply stating that part of the population does not satisfy certain assumptions. And THESE, I can prove (expected values, confidence tests and so on).



I've never said if I agree with Dancey one way or another for one thing.  And that's pretty rich of you to _now_ try and make that point, as that was the WHOLE POINT of my reply; to take you to task for doing EXACTLY what you are now accusing Dancey of doing.


> 4) Since I always close my posts with greets, just to signify that the discussion can be held on civil tones, and that we are not talking about "serious" topics such as hunger in the world or religion, I would STRONGLY appreciate that you do the same and show a bit of politeness. Otherwise, I will not bother to answer to your posts, since your replies qualify you.



Quite right.  And I have not said anything uncivil.  If you percieve that to be the case, I can only deduce that you are overly sensitive to having it pointed out that you are wrong.  If that's the case, then that's not my problem.


----------



## buzz

RFisher said:
			
		

> Why do you think a GM of a rules light system can't take all these factors & more into account when deciding the difficulty?



I'm not saying they can't. I'm saying that I can see a disconnect when playing a "lite" RPG that takes these factors into account by relying mostly on GM fiat. When you point to real-world justifications, it emphasizes that you're really just playing "Mother, may I". The GM is suddenly deciding how strong a PC is, or how a slick surface would affect their footing, whether it's reasonable that the character could make the jump, etc. I.e., you're in territory where players could potentially be pulling out their sports almanacs and Guiness' Book of Records to prove what could or couldn't be done.

If the deciding factor is wholly narrative then it makes more sense, IMO. Less of a disconnect. You're not asking anyone to have a degree in physics or anatomy, you're just asking them to adjudicate what works best for the story. E.g., a Mook might not make the jump, but a Hero would, becasue that's what Heroes do. Or, the Hero might fail, becasue that would make for good drama.

Personally, I'm more comfortable leaving the latter to fiat than I am the former.


----------



## buzz

fredramsey said:
			
		

> Never used minis in 1e. Why? There was no *tactical* movement rate. None, nada.



Does the number of inches a PC could move in a combat round not count all of a sudden?


----------



## diaglo

fredramsey said:
			
		

> Never used minis in 1e. Why? There was no *tactical* movement rate. None, nada.



huh?

you forget ranged weapons. a carry over from Chainmail's rules.


----------



## Andre

mearls said:
			
		

> In RPGs, the interface is the "mental space" that exists between the player and the game. So, miniatures and battlemats are an element of the interface. It's easier for me to make a decision and apply the rules if I can see where my sorcerer is in relation to the terrain, monsters, and the rest of the party.
> 
> I think there are a lot of issues with the interface in D&D. To extend the above example, I can see where my character is but can I easily "see" and understand all his options - cast a spell, make an attack, try to trip a foe, and so forth. By the same token, when making a character can I "see" and understand the feats, spells, skills, and so forth that I can choose from to build my PC?
> 
> That step, that act of recognizing, understanding, and using the options within the rules deals wtih the game's interface. I'm increasingly convinced that the interface is the most important part of an RPG, because the act of choosing and employing an option is the act of playing the game.




Ok, this makes sense. I saw the same thing when board games were first transferred to the computer. The computer screen generally could not show much of the board, which dramatically affected a player's ability to see the situation at a glance. Add in a bad interface for actual gameplay and many a good boardgame became unplayable on the computer - even when the rules were *identical*.


If I understand you, you're also saying that the rules themselves can enhance/detract from rules mastery and, therefore, the interface between the game and the players. A core mechanic can, if properly designed, make it easier to apply the rules when playing the game and, hence, to assess the odds of success of a given action. Interestingly, I think this is one of the most commonly praised elements of C&C - it's relatively simple task resolution system.



			
				mearls said:
			
		

> I think this is related to the false light v. heavy dichotomy in that when people say, "I want a system that creates a 20th-level NPC in 20 minutes" that has nothing to do with the number of rules present, but rather the time and effort it takes to interface with a particular set of rules.




[Rant on  ] And this is the crux of my personal dislike for 3.x. There are very few rules I specifically dislike, but many that - in play - are not worth the effort. Too situational modifiers ("Don't forget my character's bonus to saves when confronted by chickens at night when there's a full moon and..."). Too many types of bonuses. A few rules sub-systems which use significantly different mechanics than the core. Too many spells that "break" the normal rules in some way which must be adjudicated. Figuring AoO's for movement. Each of these add something to the game, but at too high a cost in fun for my particular group. I don't necessarily want fewer rules, but I do want simpler ones. [Rant off]

I'd like to posit a different question: if different groups have different thresholds for rules/interface complexity, why not design the rules to be somewhat modular? For instance, D&D could have basic rules, with AoO's being optional. A simple core mechanic could be used for special attacks, such as grapple, trip, etc., with a more complex mechanic available as an option. It seems to me that such a system, properly designed, would appeal to a broader market than the current system, which constantly warns against making changes because of "balance" (which IMO is another red herring).


----------



## fredramsey

buzz said:
			
		

> Does the number of inches a PC could move in a combat round not count all of a sudden?




Yes, you could walk x amount of inches (at 10' per inch) per round. That came out to almost all the way across any battle mat of reasonable size.

And what did moving do for you? Where was the rules for using movement in combat? Could you split your movment and move attack move?

There were none. I will admit I lied, however. We put miniatures on the battle mat because they looked cool. We used them to say, "You have this orc on you, and you have this other orc on you." And they never moved during the battle.

I still have my 1st Edition monster manual where I had written in a new stat: Tactical Movement Rate, or TMR. I was in the process of actually adding movement rules to combat.

Movement in 1e? Yes, how far you could walk in a *minute*. Not at all useful in combat, and bears no resemblence to current movement rules.

So I stand by my statement.


----------



## WizarDru

I like Chocoloate Milk.


----------



## John Morrow

Silverleaf said:
			
		

> I run a quite rules-light B/X D&D game, and frankly this concept of "mother may I" is totally alien to me.  The players decide what action they're going to take, regardless of rules.  If the swashbuckler wants to jump from the balcony, swing from the chandelier and kick the BBEG, he's well entitled to try that.  Depending on the nature of the action, we'll use either a to-hit roll, ability check, or more rarely something else.




The "mother may I" problem that my group has (and we've played plenty of rules-light games using homebrew rules and Fudge) isn't so much a matter of permission but achieving a common understanding about what's likely to happen.  If the GM thinks that jumping from the balcony, swinging from the chandelier, and kicking the BBEG is really hard and likely to fail while the player thinks it's really easy and likely to succeed, there can be a big problem when the player player states the action and then the GM resolves in a very different way than expected.  The solution, in my experience, is for the player to play what I call "20 questions" with the GM to evaluate their options and make sure the see things eye-to-eye with the GM.  

And, no, I'm not talking about the player knowing things that their character wouldn't know.  I'm talking about situations where the player's character should have at least some idea of the risks involved.  I've also had a couple of decades playing rules-light games (down to the level of "high rolls are good, low rolls are bad" being the only real rule) and this is one of the key reasons why my group (some of whom I've role-played with for nearly a couple of decades) seems to have a minimal level of desired complexity for anything but a one-shot game and why we also play Hero and (recently) d20.

In a rules-heavy game, in my experience, the players can have a very good idea of what's possible and what's not possible for their characters and in many such systems, they can even resolve complex actions without GM input.  For example, I don't have to ask the GM in a D&D game that I'm playing "How far can I move?" nor do I need to wait for the GM to tell me to make an attack of opportunity when a character moves past my character.  I can keep track of all that myself.  In a rules-light game, I need to ask the GM "Can I try to hit him as he runs past me?" or even, if we're not using a battle mat, "Does he get close enough to me to try to hit him?"  And it can create even a bigger problem if the player based their previous actions on the assumption that their character would be able to stop the bad guy if they tried to run past them while the GM rules that it's not possible. 



			
				Silverleaf said:
			
		

> The other factor is the difficulty of the task, for which we'll adjust the roll.  It's a very simple 2-step process and it works very well in practice, at least that's been my experience throughout the last couple decades...




You've never had a problem with a player disagreeing with the mechanic you've decided to use or the difficulty level that you've set?  Do your players always see eye-to-eye with the GM or do they simply go along with whatever the GM says, even if they didn't understand the situation the same way?


----------



## diaglo

WizarDru said:
			
		

> I like Chocoloate Milk.



so do i.

but i know some people are lactose intolerant
and i know some people can't handle the sugar
and i know some people can't handle choclate


----------



## Psion

RFisher said:
			
		

> Why do you think a GM of a rules light system can't take all these factors & more into account when deciding the difficulty?




Because he lacks the benefit of forethought. And referencing.

He could do it. The results would just either or both take more time (how far can you jump? I dunno... hold up while I look up some experiments on human factors on the internet...) or be a worse simulation.

The point of simulationist rules heavy games is to compile this stuff for you so you don't have to do it yourself before or during the game.


----------



## painandgreed

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Imagine a game with so many rules that the Players are completely paralyzed and unable to play at all. Reading the rules sucks all the imagination out of the reader's brain, and he is left an automaton.




Don't have to imagine, I've played Squad Leader with all the expansions. ;-)


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Andre said:
			
		

> [Rant on  ] And this is the crux of my personal dislike for 3.x. There are very few rules I specifically dislike, but many that - in play - are not worth the effort. Too situational modifiers ("Don't forget my character's bonus to saves when confronted by chickens at night when there's a full moon and..."). Too many types of bonuses. A few rules sub-systems which use significantly different mechanics than the core. Too many spells that "break" the normal rules in some way which must be adjudicated. Figuring AoO's for movement. Each of these add something to the game, but at too high a cost in fun for my particular group. I don't necessarily want fewer rules, but I do want simpler ones. [Rant off]




I totally agree.  This is something I prefer about almost every other RPG I've played, and IMO the biggest problem with D&D: D&D does not have, and never has had, a unified core mechanic.  d20 D&D, be it 3.0 or 3.5, is closer to the mark than its predecessors.  Castles and Crusades, though I don't care for it, is closer.  True20, HERO and SilCore are each in their own way significantly closer.

Every exception to the core mechanic is a design flaw, in my opinion.  It should occur only - ONLY - if an absolutely compelling reason demands it.  'Because it was in a previous edition' or 'because (I think) it's realistic' are not compelling reasons.

Figuring AoOs for movement is an interface issue, though, not a rules issue, and it's one I don't understand and probably never will.  Don't let players count squares on their turns, people!



			
				Andre said:
			
		

> I'd like to posit a different question: if different groups have different thresholds for rules/interface complexity, why not design the rules to be somewhat modular? For instance, D&D could have basic rules, with AoO's being optional. A simple core mechanic could be used for special attacks, such as grapple, trip, etc., with a more complex mechanic available as an option. It seems to me that such a system, properly designed, would appeal to a broader market than the current system, which constantly warns against making changes because of "balance" (which IMO is another red herring).




Modular rules really shouldn't be necessary.  If everything uses the same core mechanic, why have modular rules.

AoOs, being an interface issue, are part of a modular interface, which almost all RPGs have to some extent.  d20 D&D does perhaps drop the ball a bit in this regard - its interface is clearer and better defined than most RPGs, but it has lost some apparent modularity.

Balance isn't a red herring; it's just all but impossible in a system as contradictory and burdened by the past as D&D.  Whether it's desirable or not is another matter.


----------



## Andre

Ace said:
			
		

> What gives  the illusion of complexity are the myriad of rarely used subsystems (I have played or run in 5 3e campaigns and never seen a Bull Rush ) and the options that can mutate the battle field (Summon Monster is classic here) -- combat and prep in D&D are long -- the rest of the game is fast -- I would almost say --rules light




Interestingly, this is why I feel Hero has less "overhead" than 3.x. Both would qualify as rule heavy, but D&D feels like an  "exception based" system. The rules tell the players what can be done, then the subsystems break those rules in one way or another. Items and feats have effects that explained by text, but are not natural extensions of the basic rules system. 

Example: the recent thread about incense of meditation. The incense maximizes all spells prepared by a divine caster, but without any level gain (as is normal for metamagic). So...if the caster is a mystic theurge, does it maximize his arcane spells too? The rules don't say one way or the other, and there's no clear rule for how the item works - you just have to parse the text and make a best guess. 

Hero, OTOH, breaks everything down into blocks which can be combined in myriad ways, but always within the rules. If a player designs an energy blast, I know how energy blasts work. If he can fly, I know how that works. If he is hit with a suppress effect, I know how that works. Adjudicating actual gameplay is easier for me, because I don't have to worry about all those "wierd" spells/items/powers/feats/whatever that some designer came up with and how it interacts with all the other stuff in the system.


----------



## freebfrost

rabindranath72 said:
			
		

> Since you admit to never have prepared an high level character, please add to the 18 minutes cited above, the time to:
> 1) choose feats and resolve all feat chains
> 2) choose skills
> 3) determine the relevant skill bonuses
> 4) evaluate skill synergy bonuses
> 5) evaluate skill bonuses due to feats
> 6) (optional: differentiate from class and cross class skills, if you have more than one class)
> 7) evaluate the saving throw bonuses from class and feats
> 8) do not forget to increase the stats every four levels, so you may possibly have to return to point 3) to recalculate (I suppose you already choose in advance all the skills and the classes)
> 9) choose equipment and magic items based on character level
> 10) check all the steps, since this process is error-prone



The problem with these kind of arguments is that there is never a discussion about who is rolling up the character in question.

Are you someone familiar with the typical spells and feat selections for clerics, and do you have a good grasp of how skills and such work?  If so, your time to make a character will likely be shorter than someone who is not as familiar.

And does no one use character generators like PCGen?  I can roll up a 20th level character, equipment, feats, skills, everything listed above, in about 20 minutes.  I can whip out mid-level characters in about 5-10 minutes.

And never a need to check anything or figure out synergies or other bonuses...


----------



## diaglo

painandgreed said:
			
		

> Don't have to imagine, I've played Squad Leader with all the expansions. ;-)



ditto.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Andre said:
			
		

> Interestingly, this is why I feel Hero has less "overhead" than 3.x. Both would qualify as rule heavy, but D&D feels like an  "exception based" system. The rules tell the players what can be done, then the subsystems break those rules in one way or another. Items and feats have effects that explained by text, but are not natural extensions of the basic rules system.
> 
> Example: the recent thread about incense of meditation. The incense maximizes all spells prepared by a divine caster, but without any level gain (as is normal for metamagic). So...if the caster is a mystic theurge, does it maximize his arcane spells too? The rules don't say one way or the other, and there's no clear rule for how the item works - you just have to parse the text and make a best guess.
> 
> Hero, OTOH, breaks everything down into blocks which can be combined in myriad ways, but always within the rules. If a player designs an energy blast, I know how energy blasts work. If he can fly, I know how that works. If he is hit with a suppress effect, I know how that works. Adjudicating actual gameplay is easier for me, because I don't have to worry about all those "wierd" spells/items/powers/feats/whatever that some designer came up with and how it interacts with all the other stuff in the system.




Agreed!

Honestly, I don't understand why people call HERO 'rules-heavy,' aside from looking at the size of the book.

Character creation is a long slog in HERO, but actual play has been, in my experience, more detailed and faster than any version of D&D.

I will say, though, that HERO is more of a 'math game' than d20 - you need to be fast and accurate at arithmetic to play it quickly and dramatically.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Offtopic:  I really like HERO, too, but it is less a game than a toolkit for designing a game.  Same for GURPS.


----------



## Andre

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Balance isn't a red herring; it's just all but impossible in a system as contradictory and burdened by the past as D&D.  Whether it's desirable or not is another matter.




Just to clarify, I say balance is a red herring because individual groups have different play styles. For example, my group has never had a problem with scry-buff-teleport. We know it's technically possible within the rules, but it felt too cheesy to us, so we never used it, as players or GM's. So later rules designed to limit this activity don't help my group, and may in fact hinder it, by changing the value of other, more legitimate tactics. There are groups who feel _entangle_ is too strong, others who don't. Same spell, same rules, different groups.

At best, designers need to focus on providing gameplay options which are mostly equal, but attaining perfect balance just isn't possible.


----------



## Psion

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Honestly, I don't understand why people call HERO 'rules-heavy,' aside from looking at the size of the book.




I don't see how anyone could suggest otherwise. The only strict, fair definition of rules heavy games is games that, er, have lots of rules. I think the HERO power system qualifies.



> Character creation is a long slog in HERO, but actual play has been, in my experience, more detailed and faster than any version of D&D.




Whilst I agree, you can't go two posts after mentioning Hero on RPGnet before someone complains about how slow the combat is. But yeah, I never found it that way, either.

More to the point, I think if you think rules heavy = slow, you are just buying what the more vociferous rules light advocates are selling. Don't. 



> I will say, though, that HERO is more of a 'math game' than d20 - you need to be fast and accurate at arithmetic to play it quickly and dramatically.




Especially if you play a character with VPPs.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Do you know what tactical combat is?  Combat is part of fantasy role-playing.  Tactical combat is not required.



Not REQUIRED, but wanted.  I don't know about you, but we've always used minis even when playing 1st edition and 2nd edition, that didn't change for 3rd edition.

Every once in a while when a battle was easy, we'd run it it without any minis.  However, if it was at all complicated, our DMs got annoyed at answering "Where am I again?"  "How close am I to the enemies?"  "Where is the fighter in relation to me?"  So they'd put minis down to help people visualize.

I, as a DM, got annoyed at players continually coming up with new tactical maneuvers that I'd have to invent rules for.  So, when I didn't allow them to do tactical maneuvers in order to speed up the game, battles became "I hit for 20" "He hits you for 13" "I hit him for 10".

Since I've been playing and running 3rd ed, my players have been happier, they love to explore the combat options.  I find that combat holds their interest longer and there are less people leaving the room while waiting for their turn or wandering off to the bathroom and saying "you can just roll for me, I have +12 to hit and do 1d6+10 damage".  My players feel their decisions are more important and there are more ways to show the personality of their character in their combat styles.

And since, likely 80% of the game is combat, the other 20% is role playing, making the combat portion more interesting is good, IMHO.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Psion said:
			
		

> I don't see how anyone could suggest otherwise. The only strict, fair definition of rules heavy games is games that, er, have lots of rules. I think the HERO power system qualifies.




I actually disagree.

I draw a distinction between rules (which tell you how to do something) and options (which provide you with the 'something' you're doing).

Since most if not all HERO powers operate under a relatively light set of rules, it's a rules-medium game at most - it just has a ton of options within the framework of its rules.

In d20 terms, _scorching ray_ is not a rule, it's an option - x beams for yd6 fire damage, ranged touch.  _Fireball_ is also an option, but it has a rule (about catching on fire) in it, too.  d20 has a lot of _fireballs_ - a lot more than HERO.



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> Whilst I agree, you can't go two posts after mentioning Hero on RPGnet before someone complains about how slow the combat is. But yeah, I never found it that way, either.




 

HERO combat can take a while because some (most?) characters can be very hard to kill, but there's a lot going on in the course of that combat - lots of individual actions.  To me, that's fast, because it's fast-_paced_, even if the combat takes a long time to conclude.

Ah, well; perhaps I've just had better (faster) GMs for HERO than most games.



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> More to the point, I think if you think rules heavy = slow, you are just buying what the more vociferous rules light advocates are selling. Don't.




Rules heavy doesn't necessarily equal slow, but speed of resolution is one of the relevant traits that a game should probably aspire to.


----------



## ThirdWizard

Turanil said:
			
		

> So what? Is the game hugely improved by this precision? I doubt it; however I admit that the heavy rulebook helps you win the argument against players who always try to abuse the rules and get an advantage over the DM with dishonest arguments. Personally I don't game with such players. I listen to their remarks, adjust when necessary and go on with the game.




You had me going there for a while. Okay okay, I get the joke now. Good one, you had me fooled. That's a pretty good joke.


----------



## Andre

Psion said:
			
		

> I don't see how anyone could suggest otherwise. The only strict, fair definition of rules heavy games is games that, er, have lots of rules. I think the HERO power system qualifies.




Yep - and the latest core rules book is written in a style as dry as the Sahara desert. But in my experience, it's less interface-heavy than 3.x, at least in actual gameplay. For other groups, their mileage may vary.

It's kind of ironic, I used to play 1E when I wanted something easier/lighter to play, as opposed to Champions. Now, compared to 3.x, I think of Hero as the easier system. Of course, both benefit greatly from computer aids (another interface issue).




			
				Psion said:
			
		

> Especially if you play a character with VPPs.




I love VPP's! 

But when I want to have fun without thinking too hard, give me a basic brick everytime.


----------



## Remathilis

fredramsey said:
			
		

> Yes, you could walk x amount of inches (at 10' per inch) per round. That came out to almost all the way across any battle mat of reasonable size.
> 
> And what did moving do for you? Where was the rules for using movement in combat? Could you split your movment and move attack move?
> 
> There were none. I will admit I lied, however. We put miniatures on the battle mat because they looked cool. We used them to say, "You have this orc on you, and you have this other orc on you." And they never moved during the battle.
> 
> I still have my 1st Edition monster manual where I had written in a new stat: Tactical Movement Rate, or TMR. I was in the process of actually adding movement rules to combat.
> 
> Movement in 1e? Yes, how far you could walk in a *minute*. Not at all useful in combat, and bears no resemblence to current movement rules.
> 
> So I stand by my statement.




Oh, but we forget that 1e combat rounds lasted 1 MINUTE, and turns lasted 10 Minutes.
10 second rounds came about in 2e (Combat and Tactics) 6/minute
6 second rounds came about in 3e 10/minute.

So that movement WAS for combat. It was typically 12" (120'). or 12 squares. You could move 1/2 and still attack. 12/6 squares is EXACTLY the same amount the current D&D PC can move (30 ft = 6 ft' squares, older D&D had 10' squares). 

D&D didn't have tactical combat? So those geomorphs and basic edition maps with 1" grids 
weren't for combat eh?

All D&D added to make combat tactical was Attacks of oppetunity. Everything else existed in some form or fashion, usually as an optional rule.


----------



## fredramsey

No, they were to see how big the dungeon was. 10' wide hallways and all.

You can argue about "combat movment" rules in 1e all you want, but nowhere did the rules even point out about moving in combat. I seriously doubt that myself and those dozens of people I played 1e with simply ignored any tactical movement rules. Nor would I have begun to design some if they were there.

But I no longer have my PHB or DM guide. If you do, and want to post the relevant quotes, have at it.



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> Oh, but we forget that 1e combat rounds lasted 1 MINUTE, and turns lasted 10 Minutes.
> 10 second rounds came about in 2e (Combat and Tactics) 6/minute
> 6 second rounds came about in 3e 10/minute.
> 
> So that movement WAS for combat. It was typically 12" (120'). or 12 squares. You could move 1/2 and still attack. 12/6 squares is EXACTLY the same amount the current D&D PC can move (30 ft = 6 ft' squares, older D&D had 10' squares).
> 
> D&D didn't have tactical combat? So those geomorphs and basic edition maps with 1" grids
> weren't for combat eh?
> 
> All D&D added to make combat tactical was Attacks of oppetunity. Everything else existed in some form or fashion, usually as an optional rule.


----------



## diaglo

Remathilis said:
			
		

> All D&D added to make combat tactical was Attacks of oppetunity. Everything else existed in some form or fashion, usually as an optional rule.




they had attacks of opportunity in earlier editions.

edit: they also had rules on parrying
and two weapon fighting
and setting weapons for charge
and firing or launching grenade like weapons

and etc...


----------



## Ourph

Psion said:
			
		

> Because he lacks the benefit of forethought. And referencing.
> 
> He could do it. The results would just either or both take more time (how far can you jump? I dunno... hold up while I look up some experiments on human factors on the internet...)
> 
> The point of simulationist rules heavy games is to compile this stuff for you so you don't have to do it yourself before or during the game.




I completely understand your point here, but is the extra detail a rules-heavy system provides an actual benefit or is it just a facade that makes everyone feel more comfortable while really changing almost nothing?

The discussion so far has centered around comparing D&D and C&C and how a "Jump check" would be resolved.

In C&C, the CK picks a target number and has the PC make an ability check.  Almost no guidance is provided for *what* the target number should be (outside the base target numbers of 12 and 18).  The modifiers are left to the discretion of the DM.

In D&D, the DM has several modifiers that can be applied to the Jump skill check, the result of which determines how far the PC actually jumps.  The game provides heavy guidance on what modifiers to apply based on the situation.  However, since the DM creates and explains the environment, he is in control of the situation and what modifiers apply.  The DM is also allowed (even encouraged) by the rules to apply any additional situational modifiers he feels are appropriate.  The +2/-2 rule is given as a guideline, but the DMG makes it clear that the DM should deviate from this suggested standard if necessary.

How are these two systems significantly different in the level of DM judgement required to resolve the situation?  I suggest all of the extra rules and numbers are simply a screen that gives players the illusion that the DM is constrained in setting the difficulty.  There's no real benefit in terms of how likely a player is to know his chances of success.  

I have no proof and this is merely my opinion, but I suspect if you took the same DM and had him run a game with both rulesets and the same exact situation came up, the Target Number for the C&C game would not deviate significantly from the modified DC required to succeed in the D&D game.  In other words, I suspect the DM has a preset idea in his head about how difficult certain tasks should be and will use whatever system of task difficulty modifiers the rules present him with to achieve a result that fits his preconceived notion of how easily the task should be accomplished.  In D&D, the DM does so one level removed from the difficulty (by manipulating the environment in which the modifiers are applied) and in C&C the CK does so by directly modifying the difficulty, but the end result as far as the player is concerned is the same.


----------



## diaglo

fredramsey said:
			
		

> No, they were to see how big the dungeon was. 10' wide hallways and all.
> 
> You can argue about "combat movment" rules in 1e all you want, but nowhere did the rules even point out about moving in combat. I seriously doubt that myself and those dozens of people I played 1e with simply ignored any tactical movement rules. Nor would I have begun to design some if they were there.
> 
> But I no longer have my PHB or DM guide. If you do, and want to post the relevant quotes, have at it.





i have several copies.


----------



## fredramsey

diaglo said:
			
		

> i have several copies.




And?


----------



## diaglo

fredramsey said:
			
		

> And?



do you want me to send you one of each?


----------



## fredramsey

You've used this argument before, and it still pegs the  meter.

There was a rule about withdrawing from combat. That's it.



			
				diaglo said:
			
		

> they had attacks of opportunity in earlier editions.


----------



## fredramsey

diaglo said:
			
		

> do you want me to send you one of each?




No, I want you to use them to prove there was *tactical* movement rules.

If you succeed, I will buy used copies and sing your praises.

My wallet is pretty safe.


----------



## diaglo

fredramsey said:
			
		

> You've used this argument before, and it still pegs the  meter.
> 
> There was a rule about withdrawing from combat. That's it.



not exactly.

missile fire/ ranged weapons were handled differently. 

so too were reach weapons.

Chainmail was a part of OD&D. not optional


----------



## Psion

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> I draw a distinction between rules (which tell you how to do something) and options (which provide you with the 'something' you're doing).
> 
> Since most if not all HERO powers operate under a relatively light set of rules, it's a rules-medium game at most - it just has a ton of options within the framework of its rules.




Um, well, okay, but I personally find that most people use rules heavy to refer to either. In fact, I find that options are a more commonly invoked usage of the term. I mean a thin book can have a difficult to use ruleset, but I woldn't call that rules heavy. I'd call it something else (detailed or clunky, depending on what the issue is...)


----------



## fredramsey

And, if you will bother reading the post, I was speaking of First Edition AD&D, not OD&D.

If you are going to dispute someone's point, it behooves you to actually know the point in the first place.



			
				diaglo said:
			
		

> Chainmail was a part of OD&D. not optional


----------



## diaglo

fredramsey said:
			
		

> And, if you will bother reading the post, I was speaking of First Edition AD&D, not OD&D.
> 
> If you are going to dispute someone's point, it behooves you to actually know the point in the first place.



i thought i said earlier editions in my first post of this argument.

otherwise how would setting a spear vs charge work? even in 1edADnD


----------



## National Acrobat

*I concur*



			
				SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> I backed up that thread a bit to see where the discussion had originated, and it's interesting. Here's Dancy's original comment, about "20 minutes of game in 4 hours":
> 
> 
> 
> To which someone responded:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's when Dancy made the point that started this thread.
> 
> I found that very interesting. And I think it means Dancy's really missed the mark here. If your group spends 80% of their time doing non-gaming related things, that's a social issue, and one that rules of any complexity are utterly unsuited to resolve. (He pretty much admits that the quote above -- saying if they removed 5 minutes of arguing in favor of 4 minutes of rules consulting, it was a net win)
> 
> Personally, I think this is all social contract stuff. Our group sets aside the first half hour of a session for pizza and socializing, and we wait till we have all the kibitzing out of our system before we get down to business. (We also regularly get together for non-gaming related activities.) And we just plain *don't* fight over rules, because, not to be too blunt, but we don't have friends who use argument to get what they want.
> 
> You can't adjudicate that everybody gets along and focuses on the game, but designers could make some attempt to discuss the social side of gaming. Even things like advice on how to keep people focused and hold their attention would help. But I think that the fact that Ryan's pretty much saying rules-heavy is their preferred way to deal with non-rules issues is extremely telling.




I so concur. Our group spends a lot of time socializing because gaming night for us is the only time we can regularly get together and chat, hang-out, etc. We've all been friends for ages, gone through college, gotten married, had kids, some divorced, etc. We do tell prospective new players that we are a tight bunch and usually spend the first hour at least of a four hour night just talking and catching up on the day's news, etc. 

For us (and we play Castles and Crusades) it has nothing to do with the rules taking up time, but the fact that we take time to talk and hang out, so for our group it is a social thing. I'm sure if he watched us for a four-hour session on 'rules lite' systems he might think that we were wasting a boat-load of time.

To each their own.


----------



## Psion

Ourph said:
			
		

> In C&C, the CK picks a target number and has the PC make an ability check.  Almost no guidance is provided for *what* the target number should be (outside the base target numbers of 12 and 18).  The modifiers are left to the discretion of the DM.
> 
> In D&D, the DM has several modifiers that can be applied to the Jump skill check, the result of which determines how far the PC actually jumps.  The game provides heavy guidance on what modifiers to apply based on the situation.  However, since the DM creates and explains the environment, he is in control of the situation and what modifiers apply.  The DM is also allowed (even encouraged) by the rules to apply any additional situational modifiers he feels are appropriate.  The +2/-2 rule is given as a guideline, but the DMG makes it clear that the DM should deviate from this suggested standard if necessary.
> 
> How are these two systems significantly different in the level of DM judgement required to resolve the situation?  I suggest all of the extra rules and numbers are simply a screen that gives players the illusion that the DM is constrained in setting the difficulty.  There's no real benefit in terms of how likely a player is to know his chances of success.




This one seems fairly straightforward to me: because between any two DMs, and between two sessions of the same DMs in the same situation, you are much more likely to have consistent results. And I beleive consistency to be a benefit.

Further, I beleive that if the rules are codified, not only can you expect the results to be more consistent, they become more subject to scrutiny and further consideration, allowing you to make your results better match your expectations.

Finally, I beleive that having codified difficulties lets the players feel more involved with the simulated reality of the mileu. They have a better understanding of how the game world works, and can behave appropriately.


----------



## fredramsey

diaglo said:
			
		

> i thought i said earlier editions in my first post of this argument.
> 
> otherwise how would setting a spear vs charge work? even in 1edADnD




That, withdrawing from combat (free attack), ranges, etc. is not a tactical movement system. Nothing in the rules supported or encouraged knowing exactly what square you were in, or gave you a reason to move in a particular way.

Considering you could move such a great distance in a 1 minute round, and that, in the end, it wouldn't mean anything anyway since your opponent would just move with you, AD&D combat consisted of pound/pound/pound - repeat. It wasn't until 3rd edition, that specifically addressed movement of miniatures and the consequences of moving, did those rules exist.


----------



## diaglo

fredramsey said:
			
		

> That, withdrawing from combat (free attack), ranges, etc. is not a tactical movement system. Nothing in the rules supported or encouraged knowing exactly what square you were in, or gave you a reason to move in a particular way.
> 
> Considering you could move such a great distance in a 1 minute round, and that, in the end, it wouldn't mean anything anyway since your opponent would just move with you, AD&D combat consisted of pound/pound/pound - repeat. It wasn't until 3rd edition, that specifically addressed movement of miniatures and the consequences of moving, did those rules exist.



did you ever run a chase scenario. or use terrain. or worry about light sources.

i came from wargaming side. so maybe it was just inherently obvious to me.

edit: still how did you adjudicate spears set for charge?


----------



## fredramsey

diaglo said:
			
		

> did you ever run a chase scenario. or use terrain. or worry about light sources.
> 
> i came from wargaming side. so maybe it was just inherently obvious to me.
> 
> edit: still how did you adjudicate spears set for charge?




Nobody charged.

Nobody used spears.

But if they did, it would have been fairly abstract, because we wouldn't have counted squares to see if they were able to charge. The distances covered by movement gave no tatical value.


----------



## Ourph

Psion said:
			
		

> This one seems fairly straightforward to me: because between any two DMs, and between two sessions of the same DMs in the same situation, you are much more likely to have consistent results. And I beleive consistency to be a benefit.




My point is why do you believe the codified modifiers provide more consistent results when the D&D DM is given just as much authority to modify the check as the C&C CK is (but does so in a different manner)?

If the D&D DM is deciding which modifiers apply, isn't he still making a judgement call about the difficulty of the check?  Wouldn't he be applying the same judgement as a CK?  Why do you trust the first, but not the second.


----------



## Voadam

fredramsey said:
			
		

> You've used this argument before, and it still pegs the  meter.
> 
> There was a rule about withdrawing from combat. That's it.




They also had rules for casting in melee, the melee combatant got one round of attacks for each segment of casting time.

It had rules for grappling, overbearing, and pummeling including some interactions with doing so against armed opponents, although I don't remember the specifics there.

I don't remember AoO equivalent rules about missile fire or general movement though.


----------



## fredramsey

Did chases, yep. Did light sources, yep. But the minis were there to establish marching order, and who had what opponents. Why? Because movement rates were so high (1 inch did NOT mean one inch on a battle mat. It was 10 feet indoors and 10 YARDS outdoors, or don't you remember that?).

So, if you used these so-called "movement rules" for tactical combat with minis, you would have to have played in a parking lot.

So, it was done with the good old imagination most of the time. Now, with 3rd edition, you can easily do indoor and outdoor combat on a mat. Why? It has tactical movement rules.



			
				diaglo said:
			
		

> did you ever run a chase scenario. or use terrain. or worry about light sources.


----------



## JohnSnow

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Character creation is a long slog in HERO, but actual play has been, in my experience, more detailed and faster than any version of D&D.
> 
> I will say, though, that HERO is more of a 'math game' than d20 - you need to be fast and accurate at arithmetic to play it quickly and dramatically.




Well, as someone who feels this way about HERO, allow me to explain. Bear in mind that I never really "got into" HERO, and so I'm sure my opinion is colored by limited exposure. It's also worth mentioning that my sole exposure to HERO as a ruleset concerned a _Champions_ game, and that supers games are, by definition, going to involve a fair amount of adjudication of "special effects."

I statted up a relatively simple character for a _Champions_ game. This was the early 90s, so the character had a fair amount of influence from the comics of the period. He was a telepath/telekinetic with a military background and a preference for carrying firearms (so basically a Jim Lee/Rob Liefeld mutant). We started a game and the GM put me into a combat with other characters. I started using my "powers" as did the other characters. Half an hour later, the 30 second combat was done.

See, my issue with HERO isn't that it's complicated. It's that it takes a long time to resolve combat. If I can explain by analogy, HERO combats seem to play out in "Bullet Time." It's highly detailed and you can watch Neo dodge all the bullets, but the frenetic action of a scene is lost. Anyway, that's my issue with HERO.

It intrigues me that all the things people are complaining about with D&D 3e mostly are gripes with its magic item and magic systems, including things like "stacking." Oh yeah, and attacks of opportunity. I personally feel it comes down to this: for characters to be customizable and for player choice to have meaningful and consistent in-game consequences, you need rules for many of the things D&D has. For example, if you don't want characters who can get better or be meaningfully distinctive at certain combat moves or styles, you don't need feats. If you do want that, you do need them (in some form).

Just for a hoot, let's compare the "versions" of D&D, including C&C, which seems to be primarily what's driving this debate, and look at the real differences. (For the record, I'm using AD&D generically, as I've never owned the 1974 set, which came out when I was not yet 2.

*Stats* - different bonuses, but pretty much identical.
*Class abilities* - Nonspellcasters get more in 3e. Spell systems nearly identical.
*Skills* - One of the big differences
AD&D - proficiencies or not much.
3e - Uniform skill system
C&C - Primes + class skills: simplistic but fuzzy skill system.
*Saves* - Another difference
AD&D - Different kinds of saves - categories not always logical.
3e D&D - Three Saves, mostly logical - some weird ones, like "Dex-based fort saves"
C&C - 6 Saves, each one attribute based. Ultra-logical.
*Feats* - 
AD&D - Weapon/Non-Weapon Proficiencies - not exactly standardized
3e D&D - Standardized feat system - mostly increases combat options
C&C - No feats.
*Combat* -
AD&D - Simulative - battlemats not necessary except to make "borderline" calls.
3e D&D - Tactical - battlemat eliminates concept of "borderline" calls. Some added mechanics (attacks of opportunity).
C&C - Simulative - back to the OD&D/AD&D style.
*Experience* - 
AD&D - Slow advancement, "topping out" at about Level 15. Classes advance at different rates to account for "power discrepancies."
3e D&D - More rapid advancement - "balanced" through 20 levels _in theory_. Classes advance at same rate.
C&C - back to the OD&D paradigm, including different advancement per class.
*Magic Items* -
AD&D - Extra "goodies." DM ad hocs "appropriate level" of treasure.
3e D&D - Magic item "power ups" built into power curve. Guidelines in DMG.
C&C - unclear; rules forthcoming in _Castle Keeper's Guide_, not yet out.

So have I missed anything? Personally, I think 3e rationalized and standardized a lot of the things that popped up during the late 1e (and expanded during 2e) days. Some "proficiencies" became feats (ambidexterity, blind fighting, run, track, two-weapon fighting, weapon specialization) while others became skills (climb, craft, gather information, heal, herbalism, jump, ride). Finally, some of the class abilities were subsumed into the skill or feat systems and standardized (the thief, bard and ranger skills, magical item creation, etc.).

I'll freely give C&C props for the things I think it does right. I like the "attribute-based" saving throws. I hope they slip into 4e, if and when it materializes. I don't like the generic skill system, but I guess it's detailed enough for some people. As far as what it does with combat, I think it fixed one of D&D's "minor problems" while leaving a much bigger one - the magic system - utterly untouched.

So IMO, 3e was a big step toward standardization. If there's a criticism of it, other than perhaps "it's too battlemat-focused," it's that it didn't go far enough in standardizing its mechanic. For the record, I prefer a game where a jump of a given distance has a set DC, not one where the DC of a challenge is something the DM comes up with to "challenge" my PC. As a player, I want some things to become ridiculously easy at certain levels that weren't earlier. And I want to know it. If I'm just constantly facing "level-appropriate challenges," I start losing my sense of the verisimilitude of the game world, and my suspension of disbelief slips.

That's a criticism that can be levelled at the "rapid advancement" in 3e. Where do all these CR 10 critters come from that I defeat to advance to 11th level? For that matter, where were they when I was 3rd level? If they're rare, then one can assume that a significant amount of "in-game" time passes between me finding a level-appropriate encounter. So that's another prop I'll give to C&C - the diminishing effect of "levelling up" after 13th level. Personally, I think the game needs to be playable to the levels of its highest-level abilities (otherwise, why have them?), but not beyond.

So if 9th level spells are available to PCs at 17th level, then the game should top out at about 20th-level, with the realization that some of its playability assumptions change somewhere on the way to that level. If the game were well-designed, it would identify that point, or be redesigned so that those assumptions DON'T change.


----------



## fredramsey

Voadam said:
			
		

> They also had rules for casting in melee, the melee combatant got one round of attacks for each segment of casting time.
> 
> It had rules for grappling, overbearing, and pummeling including some interactions with doing so against armed opponents, although I don't remember the specifics there.
> 
> I don't remember AoO equivalent rules about missile fire or general movement though.




And these are *tactical movement* rules why?


----------



## buzz

Ourph said:
			
		

> In D&D, the DM has several modifiers that can be applied to the Jump skill check, the result of which determines how far the PC actually jumps.  The game provides heavy guidance on what modifiers to apply based on the situation.  However, since the DM creates and explains the environment, he is in control of the situation and what modifiers apply.



But there's a difference between setting the scene and being the sole arbiter as to how the PC interacts with that scene.

As you describe C&C, the player really has no idea whatsoever whether their PC can make that jump. They have to wait until the GM focuses on them, arbitrarily picks a number, and then reveals whether the roll was enough to beat it.

In D&D, as a player, I can look at the battlemat, see exactly how wide the gap is that my PC needs to jump, thus providing me, with no help from the DM, a basic DC. I then can determine the mods due to lack of space to make a running start, terrain, encumbance, etc, because they are right in the book. Barring the addition of a "DM's buddy" +2/-2 modifier, both the DM and I _are on the same page_ as to the difficulty of the jump,. I can even make my roll and determine whether the PC makes it without the participation of the DM. As a player, this is empowering. The numbers on my sheet mean something.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> In other words, I suspect the DM has a preset idea in his head about how difficult certain tasks should be and will use whatever system of task difficulty modifiers the rules present him with to achieve a result that fits his preconceived notion of how easily the task should be accomplished.



If a DM is doing this, that's railroading; the PC never had a chance. 

In the D&D scenario, both the player and the DM are ostensibly bound by the rules of the situation that's been created. The chasm that's X feet wide doesn't suddenly become X+N feet wide becasue the DM doesn't want the PC to make the jump. That would be cheating. The circumstances are accounted for; regardless of who's DMing, the DC will be the same. Consistency leads to consensus, which leads to a better play experience.

In the "lite" example, success has nothing to do with the PC's capabilties or the terrain; it's whether the GM feels like letting the PC succeed.

Personally, I prefer that the criteria be at least somewhat objective, e.g., a chasm X feet wide = DC Y. A game doens't need to be "heavy" to accomplish this objectivity, necessarily, it just needs to be "rules sufficient".


----------



## fredramsey

Well, ya'll have fun. Work's over, and I am... outta here.


----------



## Psion

Ourph said:
			
		

> My point is why do you believe the codified modifiers provide more consistent results when the D&D DM is given just as much authority to modify the check as the C&C CK is (but does so in a different manner)?
> 
> If the D&D DM is deciding which modifiers apply, isn't he still making a judgement call about the difficulty of the check?  Wouldn't he be applying the same judgement as a CK?  Why do you trust the first, but not the second.




I'm not sure what you are missing. If a number of factors to consider are established, and the modifiers for those conditions are established, you take the inherent randomness out of the magnitude of the modifiers or even the consideration out of whether something should cause a modifier. If you have the DM make up modifiers every time, the chances are that any two times, he's going to come up with different numbers, or that two different DMs will have different snap judgements about what is appropriate.


----------



## Ace

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Agreed!
> 
> Honestly, I don't understand why people call HERO 'rules-heavy,' aside from looking at the size of the book.
> 
> Character creation is a long slog in HERO, but actual play has been, in my experience, more detailed and faster than any version of D&D.
> 
> I will say, though, that HERO is more of a 'math game' than d20 - you need to be fast and accurate at arithmetic to play it quickly and dramatically.





My only objections to Hero are the phased combat system (which seems really slow) and chargen -- the rest of the systems seem brilliant and how slow could 3d6 roll low be.


----------



## Voadam

fredramsey said:
			
		

> And these are *tactical movement* rules why?




They are not. And were not intended to be examples of such.

These are examples of AoOs in 1e, in response to your disagreement of the quote from Diaglo where he says there were AoOs in previous editions.

Your post, #505 of this thread.

"You've used this argument before, and it still pegs the  meter.

There was a rule about withdrawing from combat. That's it."

in response to 

Originally Posted by diaglo
"they had attacks of opportunity in earlier editions."


----------



## buzz

Ourph said:
			
		

> My point is why do you believe the codified modifiers provide more consistent results when the D&D DM is given just as much authority to modify the check as the C&C CK is (but does so in a different manner)?
> 
> If the D&D DM is deciding which modifiers apply, isn't he still making a judgement call about the difficulty of the check?  Wouldn't he be applying the same judgement as a CK?  Why do you trust the first, but not the second.



Becasue a DM in D&D is not allowed, in the RAW, to just set the DC for a 10' jump as high as she wants. There's a _contract_ between the players and the DM that the rules in the book _apply_. The rules dictate modifiers for the jump based on distance, terrain, etc. The DC produced by those rules will vary by +2/-2 at best unless the DM is outright ignoring them.

I mean, I understand what you're getting at, that there's potential in _any_ RPG that the GM can potentially ignore rules willy-nilly. But what's the point of using any system if that's the case? The basic assumption is that the rules will be used, and by the rules, the D&D version of the check will not vary, and thus the player can accurately assess how his PC's capabilties function within the game world.

There's a quote I think is relevant here (another one I found on Mearls' blog): "That's the value of well-designed rules. They let you do things that are more fun than you'd have without them." - Vincent Baker

IMO, the "lite" game _that relies wholly on fiat_ is no more or less fun than "Mother, may I". I.e., why did I need to pay money for the game if I'm just playing "Did not!"/"Did too!"?

For me, rules-sufficient (I'm going to stop saying "heavy" here) is more fun, becasue there's a system in which all the participants work that serves as an equalizer. E.g., both the GM and I know that my PC can cover X distance in a round because the PC's movement is >= X (or possibly because the distance is rated at "Drama 1" and my Hero can accomplish anything of "Drama 5" or better in a scene wihtout rolling). If it's wholly up to whether the GM feels like letting the PC succeed, well, I guess I'd rather just go home a read a book (or write one).


----------



## buzz

By-the-by, it's really nice to see the HERO-love here.

Buzz "I am HERO's beeyotch" Ooi


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Near as I can tell, these are tactical combat movement rules.  Perhaps someone will translate it into English (or another language more widely recognized than that of the old PHB, such as Latin?  Or Klingon?)  



			
				AD&D 1e Player's Handbook said:
			
		

> *Movement - Time and Distance Factors*
> 
> Movement range is always shown by a numeral followed by the sign for inches thus, 9."  The number of inches moved is scaled to circumstance and time by modifying either the distance represented or the time period or both.
> 
> *Movement in the Dungeon:* The movement distance in the dungeon is 1" to 10' over a turn of 10 minutes duration while exploration and mapping are in progress.  If the party is following a known route or map, the movement rate is 5 times greater, so each move takes 1/5 of a turn (2 rounds).  If the party is fleeing, all movement - excluding encumbered movement, is 10 times faster, so that each move takes only 1/10 of a turn, or 1 round.  This same movement rate applies in combat situations, so by converting each 1" of movement rate to 10', and then taking 1/10 of the round (using segments), the distance a character or monster can travel during the course of combat is easily found.




Although even less clear and precise, *Melee Combat* on pg. 104 and pg. 105 and *Example of Combat* on pg. 105 indicate the importance of position (as does the use of a radius spell, _silence 15 ft. radius_, in the example).  They also discuss grappling, and the very quick progression from being grappled to probably being slain outright!


----------



## Ourph

buzz said:
			
		

> But there's a difference between setting the scene and being the sole arbiter as to how the PC interacts with that scene.
> 
> As you describe C&C, the player really has no idea whatsoever whether their PC can make that jump. They have to wait until the GM focuses on them, arbitrarily picks a number, and then reveals whether the roll was enough to beat it.




Why do you assume that in C&C the player cannot ask the CK how difficult the jump would be before making the role, or even deciding to act?  Why do you assume that the number picked is "arbitrary", rather than based on the same type of situational modifiers that might apply in a more rules-heavy system?



> In D&D, as a player, I can look at the battlemat, see exactly how wide the gap is that my PC needs to jump, thus providing me, with no help from the DM, a basic DC. I then can determine the mods due to lack of space to make a running start, terrain, encumbance, etc, because they are right in the book.




The modifiers for terrain are in the book, but the status of the terrain and the space available for a running start at the point of the jump is completely up to the DM.  You will still have to interact with a real person at some point in order to determine which modifiers apply.  At that point, the person with the authority to make those decisions will inform you of the difficulty of the task (either by simply telling you the net difficulty or enumerating the modifiers that apply to the base difficulty).



> Barring the addition of a "DM's buddy" +2/-2 modifier, both the DM and I _are on the same page_ as to the difficulty of the jump,. I can even make my roll and determine whether the PC makes it without the participation of the DM.




Again, you're not on the same page until you know what modifiers apply.  If the pit is actually a shaft with a strong updraft and the DM has decided this provides a +5 modifier to Jump checks across the pit, you won't know that until 1 - A description of the updraft comes up in actual play; 2 - You ask the DM about the specific environment of the pit; or 3 - You ask the DM about the difficulty of a Jump check to cross the pit.  All three of which would also be necessary in C&C to get that information.



> As a player, this is empowering. The numbers on my sheet mean something.




As do the ability scores on a C&C character's sheet.  They determine how good or bad things are on your end.  They don't do anything to inform you about how likely you are to succeed or fail until you have all of the information about the difficulty of a specific task.




> If a DM is doing this, that's railroading; the PC never had a chance.




How is setting a DC or TN railroading?  How is saying "The jump requires a Str check TN=15" any different than saying "The pit is 10ft wide, the roughness of the floor in this area makes a running start impossible, a strong updraft provides a +5 bonus to Jump checks across the pit.  Resulting DC = 15."?



> In the D&D scenario, both the player and the DM are ostensibly bound by the rules of the situation that's been created. The chasm that's X feet wide doesn't suddenly become X+N feet wide becasue the DM doesn't want the PC to make the jump. That would be cheating.




In C&C, modifying the TN after the PC rolls based on whether or not you want him to fail or not would also (by most reasonable people I think) be defined as "cheating".  That's not what we're talking about here.  If the player asks the CK, "If I try to jump the pit, how difficult will it be?" and the CK says, "It's a TN=15 Str check" where is the discernable difference between D&D and C&C?




> The circumstances are accounted for; regardless of who's DMing, the DC will be the same. Consistency leads to consensus, which leads to a better play experience.




The circumstances aren't accounted for until the player communicates to the DM and makes sure he knows all the facts about the situation.  In both systems, the DM sets the difficulty based on certain criteria.  If a player assumes he knows all the criteria before communicating with the DM, he's just as likely to run into unexpected consequences in D&D as he is in C&C.  I agree that consensus leads to a better play experience, but I don't think you automatically reach consensus with preset difficulty modifiers and I don't think consistency is the only way to reach consensus.



> In the "lite" example, success has nothing to do with the PC's capabilties or the terrain; it's whether the GM feels like letting the PC succeed.




That's absolutely untrue.  You're either misreading my original post or I wasn't clear enough.  Either way, this has nothing to do with the DM fudging the roll for a specific result.



> Personally, I prefer that the criteria be at least somewhat objective, e.g., a chasm X feet wide = DC Y. A game doens't need to be "heavy" to accomplish this objectivity, necessarily, it just needs to be "rules sufficient".




But D&D doesn't provide you with a rule that says a chasm Xft wide = DC Y.  It provides you with a system that sets a base DC according to the width of the jump, then modifies it according to several factors.  Whether those modifiers apply is up to the DM and should (in a fair game with a reasonable and impartial DM) be either available to the player by asking the DM or discoverable by the player through in-game actions.  This is not, from the players perspective, measurably different than how things work in C&C.


----------



## Ourph

Psion said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you are missing. If a number of factors to consider are established, and the modifiers for those conditions are established, you take the inherent randomness out of the magnitude of the modifiers or even the consideration out of whether something should cause a modifier.




But both systems still require communication between two people (DM/CK and player) to establish what the ultimate difficulty is; and both situations still leave the power to determine that difficulty in the hands of a single person acting as "referee".  In both cases, you're still relying on the person acting as referee to make reasonable decisions.



> If you have the DM make up modifiers every time, the chances are that any two times, he's going to come up with different numbers




I still don't understand why this is your baseline assumption.  My experience has been exactly the opposite.  In general, people I've played with tend to assign the same types of modifiers consistently and will usually assign the same types of modifiers even when playing different systems for tasks which are essentially the same (ex. - jumping a 10ft pit).

Even if they don't, simple communication between player and DM removes any ambiguity and I maintain that D&D requires that communication just as much any other system, because (while the modifiers themselves might be delineated in some cases) whether they apply or not and whether any additional modifiers apply is clearly still up to the DM.  Players are still going to have to engage in some form of communication in order to ascertain the difficulty in most situations or risk making a decision without all the relevant facts.


----------



## fredramsey

Movement rate for unencumbered human = 12"

Converting for indoor movement = 120 feet

Converting for battlemat scale of 1 square = 5' (and it was, or you could never stand side by side in a 10' square) = 24"

24" = 2 feet of movement per round. Check your battlemat.

Average dungeon room = 30' x 30'

30' x 30' = 6" x 6", real measurement.

Movement rate of an unencumbered human per round = 24 squares/24 real inches.

Thus, you could move from any point in the room, to any other point in the room, at no penalty. And, other than stepping up to the next opponent, what encourages you to move? Fireballs? Indoors, Fireball took up so many cubic squares.

Outdoors, range was in 1" = 10 yards, or 30 feet.

Movement rate for an unencumbered human outdoors? 12"

1" = 10 yards = 30 feet = 60"

My battlemat didn't span 5'

So, again, only for relative positioning.

Does that make it any clearer? No tacticial movement rules, period.



			
				MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Near as I can tell, these are tactical combat movement rules.  Perhaps someone will translate it into English (or another language more widely recognized than that of the old PHB, such as Latin?  Or Klingon?)
> 
> 
> 
> Although even less clear and precise, *Melee Combat* on pg. 104 and pg. 105 and *Example of Combat* on pg. 105 indicate the importance of position (as does the use of a radius spell, _silence 15 ft. radius_, in the example).  They also discuss grappling, and the very quick progression from being grappled to probably being slain outright!


----------



## Desdichado

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> I draw a distinction between rules (which tell you how to do something) and options (which provide you with the 'something' you're doing).



According to that classification scheme, I'm not sure how d20 is "rules heavy" then either.  Especially since most of the rules of D&D are optional monsters, spells, magic items, etc.


----------



## Ourph

buzz said:
			
		

> Becasue a DM in D&D is not allowed, in the RAW, to just set the DC for a 10' jump as high as she wants. There's a _contract_ between the players and the DM that the rules in the book _apply_. The rules dictate modifiers for the jump based on distance, terrain, etc. The DC produced by those rules will vary by +2/-2 at best unless the DM is outright ignoring them.




That's simply not true.  The +2/-2 suggested modifier is just that, a suggestion.  In addition, if the DM decides there are seven factors that all add +2 to the DC, then the total modifier is +14.  As a player, it would be reckless to assume that there will never be a situation when more than one modifier might apply to a certain check.  In addition, the Jump rules specifically allow for a DM call that greatly affects the DC of a jump (doubling the DC for a longjump when no running start is possible).  Whether a running start is possible is dependent on any number of factors and is clearly up to the DM.



> I mean, I understand what you're getting at, that there's potential in _any_ RPG that the GM can potentially ignore rules willy-nilly.




But I'm not talking about ignoring rules, in any system.  My point is that a DM is required to set DCs in D&D just as CKs are required to set TNs in C&C.  A D&D player who assumes he knows which modifiers apply in any given situation is just as likely to run into problems as a C&C player who fails to communicate with his CK about the difficulty of a task before attempting it.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Well, as someone who feels this way about HERO, allow me to explain. Bear in mind that I never really "got into" HERO, and so I'm sure my opinion is colored by limited exposure. It's also worth mentioning that my sole exposure to HERO as a ruleset concerned a _Champions_ game, and that supers games are, by definition, going to involve a fair amount of adjudication of "special effects."
> 
> I statted up a relatively simple character for a _Champions_ game. This was the early 90s, so the character had a fair amount of influence from the comics of the period. He was a telepath/telekinetic with a military background and a preference for carrying firearms (so basically a Jim Lee/Rob Liefeld mutant). We started a game and the GM put me into a combat with other characters. I started using my "powers" as did the other characters. Half an hour later, the 30 second combat was done.
> 
> See, my issue with HERO isn't that it's complicated. It's that it takes a long time to resolve combat. If I can explain by analogy, HERO combats seem to play out in "Bullet Time." It's highly detailed and you can watch Neo dodge all the bullets, but the frenetic action of a scene is lost. Anyway, that's my issue with HERO.




Cool.  I understand much better now.

I'd never think to count the actual in-game time (30 seconds, in this case) because I'd be busy smiling that a combat was resolved in just a half hour of play.  However, I can see how the HERO method (where everything plays out) could be less satisfying than the D&D method (where 90% of all attacks/parries/dodges/etc. are just imagined) if the actual in-game time mattered.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Ourph said:
			
		

> That's simply not true.  The +2/-2 suggested modifier is just that, a suggestion.  In addition, if the DM decides there are seven factors that all add +2 to the DC, then the total modifier is +14.  As a player, it would be reckless to assume that there will never be a situation when more than one modifier might apply to a certain check.  In addition, the Jump rules specifically allow for a DM call that greatly affects the DC of a jump (doubling the DC for a longjump when no running start is possible).  Whether a running start is possible is dependent on any number of factors and is clearly up to the DM.




 

I don't think I've ever assigned more than, at most, two or three +/-2 modifiers to a skill check.  If you, or a DM you know, routinely applies SEVEN, then I can see why rules-light would be the way to go.

Yee!



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> But I'm not talking about ignoring rules, in any system.  My point is that a DM is required to set DCs in D&D just as CKs are required to set TNs in C&C.  A D&D player who assumes he knows which modifiers apply in any given situation is just as likely to run into problems as a C&C player who fails to communicate with his CK about the difficulty of a task before attempting it.




If the DM is routinely tossing around total situational modifiers in excess of +/-4, he isn't playing anything approach RAW d20, in my opinion.  That's no different than ignoring the rules, for better or worse.


----------



## Psion

Ourph said:
			
		

> But both systems still require communication between two people (DM/CK and player) to establish what the ultimate difficulty is; and both situations still leave the power to determine that difficulty in the hands of a single person acting as "referee".




Okay. I'm not sure what else I can amplify.



> In both cases, you're still relying on the person acting as referee to make reasonable decisions.




Sure.

But lets say a given book gives me a -4 modifier for a strong wind. It's always going to give me a -4 modifier for a strong wind, unless I specifically decide to change it. In absence of a reason for thinking that number is wrong, I'll use it.

But now if a system provides me with no modifier for wind, I might not even think about factoring in a modifier for wind, and I might not chose -4. On two different occasions, I might decide that two different numbers are appropriate. And in the exact same situation, another GM would pick a totally different number.



> Even if they don't, simple communication between player and DM removes any ambiguity and I maintain that D&D requires that communication just as much any other system,




I'm not saying that it doesn't. But it's not the communication where the difference lies. It's in the interperetation. What does a strong wind mean? How much does it affect my chances? Those things would normally be GM calls if not spelled out in the rules. And without any sort of guideance, there is nothing short of memory and happenstance to ensure that the same situation has the same difficulty in different instances.



> Players are still going to have to engage in some form of communication in order to ascertain the difficulty in most situations or risk making a decision without all the relevant facts.




Okay, that doesn't bother me. I'm fine with the players not knowing exactly what the odds are. But I do think it is better if they have some notion. If they have some notion of how many feet a +1 modifier to jump is but don't really know what other modifiers their might be, that gives them a mixture of immersion (because their character might have a good estimation of how far they can jump) and aprehension (because they have never tried *this* before.)


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> According to that classification scheme, I'm not sure how d20 is "rules heavy" then either.  Especially since most of the rules of D&D are optional monsters, spells, magic items, etc.




Because most of the spells, many of the magic items and a handful of the monsters (though I can't think of one offhand) have rules attached to the options.

By rules, I mean exceptions to the core mechanic.  Elements that aren't resolved by rolling 1d20 and adding modifiers opposed to either another d20 roll or a target number, or dealing _x_d_y_+_z_ damage - the two core mechanics of d20.

_Fireball_'s burning save is one example.

Almost every spell over 5th level is another. :\ 

d20 D&D has less, but still more than HERO, and certainly a greater percentage.


----------



## Mallus

buzz said:
			
		

> Becasue a DM in D&D is not allowed, in the RAW, to just set the DC for a 10' jump as high as she wants. There's a _contract_ between the players and the DM that the rules in the book _apply_. The rules dictate modifiers for the jump based on distance, terrain, etc. The DC produced by those rules will vary by +2/-2 at best unless the DM is outright ignoring them.



First off, I'd like to chime in and say the only implied contract between me and my players states that we'll all try to entertain each other. There's no langauge concerning the slightly arbitrary assignment of Jump DC's  

Now, specifically to your point about Jump. What if I as DM decide to employ bigger circumstance penalties than +/-2? (I always thought that limit was way too low). Perhaps its raining heavily, or someone turned the gravity up .3g's, or something else weird, wacky and wonderful that can occur in a fantasy RPG, and I decide that a circumstance penalty of -4 is in order, seeing as the rules didn't specifically model the given situation. Am I still ignoring the rules? And if so, what harm has it done? 


> The basic assumption is that the rules will be used, and by the rules, the D&D version of the check will not vary, and thus the player can accurately assess how his PC's capabilties function within the game world.



What if the basic assumption is a little different. What if the DM and players assume that the rules amount to a toolkit from which the game experience is built? What if the players accept a slightly less accurate, more ballpark-ish assessment of their capabilities in any given situation. And the reason they accept this is because the believe than no game system is up to the task of modelling _every_ possible action that might be used to resolve a task. The players accept a 'fudge factor' and even a little inconsistency in return for being able to interact with the play environment in ways not explicitly covered in the rules. 


> For me, rules-sufficient (I'm going to stop saying "heavy" here) is more fun,



I think we disagree on whether D&D 3.x strictly by the RAW is rules-sufficient. I'd say its certainly good enough for me and my pals to make a fun game out of it (we have a mix of tacticians, drama-queens, and after-work catharsis sociopaths, playing a mix of rules-heavy and rules-light, and somehow it all works).


> If it's wholly up to whether the GM feels like letting the PC succeed, well, I guess I'd rather just go home a read a book (or write one).



While I understand what you're saying, at some level doesn't it always come down to that? 
Players come up with a plan, DM decides how well it will work. No rule system I know of ever altered that basic set-up...


----------



## Psion

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Because most of the spells, many of the magic items and a handful of the monsters (though I can't think of one offhand) have rules attached to the options.




So does almost every power, advantage, and disadvantage in HERO. I'm not seenig the distinction, other that in HERO you would be building the spells and attacks. But still, there's a book full of 'em.


----------



## Psion

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> If the DM is routinely tossing around total situational modifiers in excess of +/-4, he isn't playing anything approach RAW d20, in my opinion.  That's no different than ignoring the rules, for better or worse.




Eh. I've got to disagree with that. I think +2/-2 was chosen because its large enough to be sensible yet small enough not to make or break your roll, a quick and easy thumbrule. I have no DMG handy, but if you are fixating on the RAW, I seem to remember the verbage "or larger" to provide for the possibility of larger modifiers. (Not like I wouldn't feel free to use larger modifiers if it didn't say that. _Use the rules, don't let the rules use you_!)


----------



## Psion

Mallus said:
			
		

> While I understand what you're saying, at some level doesn't it always come down to that?
> Players come up with a plan, DM decides how well it will work. No rule system I know of ever altered that basic set-up...




True enough.

But, getting into the dreaded dice versus diceless debate, I think that having the chance of failure actually gives the DM more options, since he can presnt the players with more possibilities that "that will work" or "that won't work", and give the players a satisfaction of "having a chance". That become more meaningful yet if the players not only feel that they had a chance, but it wasn't arbitrary.

IMO, natch.


----------



## Psion

buzz said:
			
		

> For me, rules-sufficient (I'm going to stop saying "heavy" here) is more fun,




I prefer "robust", myself. But perhaps that's the software engineer in me speaking.


----------



## Akrasia

buzz said:
			
		

> Spells are probably the primary source of complexity in D&D and its derivatives. Each spell is its own little subset of rules. Saying that C&C has _60 pages_ of "mere" spell descriptions does nothing to convince me that it is rules-light. That's 60 more pages of rules, and that alone is proably more rule information than is contained in the entire _Buffy_ core book.
> 
> A "lite" spell system, IMO, is, e.g., Tri-Stat being able to cover those 60 pages with "Dynamic Magic - Rank 3: PC can create any magical effect with a max power of Rank 3."
> 
> So, personally, I don't buy it.



'
Well whatever.  I really don't care whether you 'buy it' or not.  

My *experience* with *both* systems has demonstrated to me that they are equivalent in terms of 'rules heaviness'.  They both have simple resolution mechanicisms capable of handling most situations, and can be grasped by players in under 10 minutes.

Maybe BtVS is slightly 'lighter' than C&C, or vice versa.  Whatever.  They both have similar learning curves, are easy to learn, and easy to prep.  Having actually played both games, I would put them in the same category (much 'lighter' than 3e).


----------



## Campbell

You guys have gotten me jonesing to run HERO again.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Psion said:
			
		

> So does almost every power, advantage, and disadvantage in HERO. I'm not seenig the distinction, other that in HERO you would be building the spells and attacks. But still, there's a book full of 'em.




I'll admit, I don't own a copy of the HERO core rules (yet), nor have I ever GMed the system.  As a player, though, I've used and observed many powers and seen basically all of them follow the same core mechanic.  They don't have their own rules.

Perhaps when I've gotten the core book and had a chance to really look through it, I'll change my mind.


----------



## Gentlegamer

buzz said:
			
		

> In the "lite" example, success has nothing to do with the PC's capabilties or the terrain; it's whether the GM feels like letting the PC succeed.



It's obvious you have no trust of Game Masters.  They are impartial participants, referees of the action.


----------



## John Morrow

Mallus said:
			
		

> Players come up with a plan, DM decides how well it will work. No rule system I know of ever altered that basic set-up...




What about:

The GM comes up with a situation.  Players come up with a plan.  The rules and dice decide how well it works.

...or...

Players come up with a plan.  The GM decides what sorts of situations their characters will face.  The rules and dice decide how well it works.


???

(EDIT: I suppose I should add that I've actually played GMless role-playing games using published rules.)


----------



## Akrasia

Psion said:
			
		

> ... Right now we are in a rash of rules-light-validators ...




I don't understand this.  Why describe it as a 'rash'?  Why not simply admit that there is an *established* segment of the market that prefers 'rules light' (or, more precisely, 'lighter-than-3e') games?

Sure the segment might be a 'minority'.  But if it is there, why dismiss it as a 'rash'?

I've got nothing against people who like rules-heavy games.  But I don't get the dismissivenes of those gamers who prefer 'lighter' games.


----------



## Mallus

Psion said:
			
		

> I think that having the chance of failure actually gives the DM more options, since he can presnt the players with more possibilities that "that will work" or "that won't work", and give the players a satisfaction of "having a chance".IMO, natch.



Sure. I wasn't talking about a DM deciding if the plan succeeded or failed. I was describing a DM assessing the players plan and deciding how tough/what specific challenges the PC's would face in light of it. 

I'd just like to say --again, probably-- that no rules system can insulate a player against a bad DM. Not while still offering a robust amount of player choice. Does anyone here think 3.5 does? Think about CR and its reliance on the 'typical balanced party' (Hey, there goes player choice... if you want to play all fighters, then you're on your own...)


----------



## buzz

Ourph said:
			
		

> Why do you assume that in C&C the player cannot ask the CK how difficult the jump would be before making the role, or even deciding to act?  Why do you assume that the number picked is "arbitrary", rather than based on the same type of situational modifiers that might apply in a more rules-heavy system?



Because you described the C&C process as:



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> In C&C, the CK picks a target number and has the PC make an ability check. Almost no guidance is provided for what the target number should be (outside the base target numbers of 12 and 18). The modifiers are left to the discretion of the DM.



I'm nto saing the player can't _ask_, I'm saying that ti sounds liek the player _has_ to ask, becasue otherwise they have no idea whether their PC is capable of making the jump, as "no guidance is provided" in the rules.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> The modifiers for terrain are in the book, but the status of the terrain and the space available for a running start at the point of the jump is completely up to the DM.



No it isn't. I can look at the battlemap and know exactly what the distance is, whether there's room for a running start, and (with most DMs I play with, including me) see where hindered terrain is marked. There may be other mods that I need to ask the DM about, but at least I'm in the ballpark.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Again, you're not on the same page until you know what modifiers apply.  If the pit is actually a shaft with a strong updraft and the DM has decided this provides a +5 modifier to Jump checks across the pit, you won't know that until 1 - A description of the updraft comes up in actual play; 2 - You ask the DM about the specific environment of the pit; or 3 - You ask the DM about the difficulty of a Jump check to cross the pit.  All three of which would also be necessary in C&C to get that information.



If the DM is adding a +5 because of a draft, she's totally making up a rule, and picking a modifier that's way beyond the +2/-2 "DM's buddy".



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> As do the ability scores on a C&C character's sheet.  They determine how good or bad things are on your end.  They don't do anything to inform you about how likely you are to succeed or fail until you have all of the information about the difficulty of a specific task.



The total bonus for my barbarian's Jump check tells me exactly the minimum long and high jumps he can make: 1+Jump in feet for long w/ 20' running start, half that for no run, one-quarter that for the high jump. Start with 10+Jump, and I know the average. I also know exactly what the effects of hindering terrain are, and can look up exact info about how slippery floors will require a balance check, and so on.

Sure, I need info about the surroundings from the DM, but at least that info has meaning in rules terms. Your description of C&C makes it sound like the numbers on the sheet don't really tell me anything, because the guidelines for the jump's TN exist solely in the GM's head.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> How is setting a DC or TN railroading?  How is saying "The jump requires a Str check TN=15" any different than saying "The pit is 10ft wide, the roughness of the floor in this area makes a running start impossible, a strong updraft provides a +5 bonus to Jump checks across the pit.  Resulting DC = 15."?



Because the DM isn't deciding right then and there that 1' = +1 DC, or that the lack of a run doubles the DC. The only thing that's arbitrary is the updraft (and that would liekly have no effect on the jump DC in the RAW).



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> If the player asks the CK, "If I try to jump the pit, how difficult will it be?" and the CK says, "It's a TN=15 Str check" where is the discernable difference between D&D and C&C?



Because in the C&C you describe, the player knows _absolutely nothing_ about their chances to make the jump until they ask the GM. One GM may think the updraft merits a bonus, another a penalty. One GM might be playing things "gritty" and set a really high TN for a 10' jump, while another might be going for wire-fu and set it really low. One may get really anal about the texture of the floor, and another may not care. As a player, all I can do is ask permission. "My Str is 14. Can I make the jump?"

From my perspective, the numbers on my sheet don't really seem to mean squat.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> The circumstances aren't accounted for until the player communicates to the DM and makes sure he knows all the facts about the situation.  In both systems, the DM sets the difficulty based on certain criteria.  If a player assumes he knows all the criteria before communicating with the DM, he's just as likely to run into unexpected consequences in D&D as he is in C&C.  I agree that consensus leads to a better play experience, but I don't think you automatically reach consensus with preset difficulty modifiers and I don't think consistency is the only way to reach consensus.



I'm not sure I see how having a set formula for jump checks can lead to equal or less consistency than not having one. The instances where there will be situational modifiers where the DC varies wildy from the RAW are few and far between.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> That's absolutely untrue.  You're either misreading my original post or I wasn't clear enough.  Either way, this has nothing to do with the DM fudging the roll for a specific result.



Well, you said: 



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> In other words, I suspect the DM has a preset idea in his head about how difficult certain tasks should be and will use whatever system of task difficulty modifiers the rules present him with to achieve a result that fits his preconceived notion of how easily the task should be accomplished.



The point is that there is a system being used, and as a player, I can see how the DC was arrived at, i.e., there's a codified rationale.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> But D&D doesn't provide you with a rule that says a chasm Xft wide = DC Y.



Actually, that's pretty much how the jump rules work. 



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> It provides you with a system that sets a base DC according to the width of the jump, then modifies it according to several factors.  Whether those modifiers apply is up to the DM and should (in a fair game with a reasonable and impartial DM) be either available to the player by asking the DM or discoverable by the player through in-game actions.  This is not, from the players perspective, measurably different than how things work in C&C.



But the modifiers are pertty much codified, and will generally not vary because, say, the GM has had a bad day, or feels like going easy on me, or has bad spatial skills, or doesn't buy my argument as to why my PC should succeed.


----------



## Psion

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> I'll admit, I don't own a copy of the HERO core rules (yet), nor have I ever GMed the system.  As a player, though, I've used and observed many powers and seen basically all of them follow the same core mechanic.  They don't have their own rules.
> 
> Perhaps when I've gotten the core book and had a chance to really look through it, I'll change my mind.




Well, a lot of them use variations of a theme. Like mind control, illusions, etc. use Xd6 to beat stat, stat + 10, etc. Some use the offense/defense mechanic. And some are their own beasts, like just about every power or advantage with a stop sign on it. Some use the feat-like "you can do this" (breathe in space, etc.)

But really, that's not so different from the way 3e is, especially if you contrast it with 2e and before. For example, it would used to be that armor enchantment gave you bonuses, but the shield spell gave you a straight up AC, which was different depending upon what you were defending against. In 3e, it's just a typed bonus. Shield of faith is a typed bonus. Magical vestement is a typed bonus. And they follow the standardized mechanic of typed bonuses of the same name don't stack.

Similarly, many spells rely on standardized effects. All fear effects are standardized. Helpless is standardized. Stun is standardized. Entangle is standardized. They all use the same rules regardless of which spell caused them.

So, as I see it, the cheif difference between HERO and D&D spell-wise is that D&D spells are like end product constructed powers in HERO.


----------



## buzz

fredramsey said:
			
		

> Converting for battlemat scale of 1 square = 5' (and it was, or you could never stand side by side in a 10' square)



So you played on half-inch squares? IIRC, 1e is all 1" = 10'. And all your characters were unencumbered humans? Doing nothing but moving each 10-secoond round? And you never had to use segments?



			
				fredramsey said:
			
		

> No tacticial movement rules, period.



If positioning matters, you're talking tactical. 1e had both positioning and facing, ergo, tactical (IMO).


----------



## Psion

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I don't understand this.  Why describe it as a 'rash'?  Why not simply admit that there is an *established* segment of the market that prefers 'rules light' (or, more precisely, 'lighter-than-3e') games?
> 
> Sure the segment might be a 'minority'.  But if it is there, why dismiss it as a 'rash'?




Sorry. Would you prefer a "flurry"?



> I've got nothing against people who like rules-heavy games.  But I don't get the dismissivenes of those gamers who prefer 'lighter' games.




I'm not dismissive of those who PLAY rules light games. Those who spend time prostelyzing the evils of the chains of rules heavy games, on the other hand, I must confess annoy me.


----------



## Mallus

John Morrow said:
			
		

> The GM comes up with a situation.  Players come up with a plan.  The rules and dice decide how well it works.



Do I need to specify that I'm talking about situations the rules don't cover? Complex situations like framing a noble, undermining a rival nations ecomony, forming a alliance of free kingdoms against an empire, heck, even something as simple as breaking into an estate or storming a castle... 


> Players come up with a plan.  The GM decides what sorts of situations their characters will face.  The rules and dice decide how well it works.



That's precisely what I meant by 'the DM decides how _well_ the plan will work'. I assume that the difficulty of those situations will somehow relate to what the DM thought --oh so subjectively-- of the players plan(s).


> (EDIT: I suppose I should add that I've actually played GMless role-playing games using published rules.)



See now I haven't. They sound really interesting, and I have at least two friends who'd love that sort of game environment. But I speaking strictly out of my experience playing D&D...


----------



## Akrasia

Ace said:
			
		

> ...
> I am also of the opinion that younger gamers (12 to say 24 maybe) want and need more rules. Not only do they often have (in case of the kids anyway) less social maturity and dispute resolution skills the type of game they need is different
> 
> Younger kids want and need conflict resolution driven games like most D&D -- kick in the door-- kill the critter-- take stuff -- power up-- repeat is nearly an ideal set up for them. They also often have more time to play and prep  so the rules help them
> 
> Gamers as their tastes change often find this model less satisfactory.
> 
> Older gamers in particular (30+ ) often have less time or interest in the mechanical set up of games and many are able to handle a more complex social contract.
> 
> The rules become an impediment to the FEEL of the desired game and sometimes the actual play as well




This is an excellent point, and certainly conforms to my own experience.


----------



## JohnSnow

Since people have been picking on _Castles and Crusades_, I'll do the same. I think it comes down to the fact that the difference is what sort of guidelines the rulebooks give to the CK/DM in deciding how to set the TN/DC.

In 3e D&D, the DC is a number that can either be "ballparked" as easy (DC 5), average (DC 10), tough (DC 15), challenging (DC 20), formidable (DC 25), heroic (DC 30), nearly impossible (DC 40) or whatever or SPECIFICALLY figured out. The 3.5 rules then give a lot of suggestions for adding up modifiers, by way of explaining to the DM the combination of factors which might result in a "heroic" task difficulty.

What the C&C book does is give a much looser interpretation. The guideline C&C gives FIRST is that a "level-appropriate" challenge is one in which the TN equals the base TN (12 or 18) + the character's level. Alternatively, it retains the rough difficulty levels, but ignores the easy stuff as just "routine," and recommends circumstance modifiers of (I believe) +5 (tough), +10 (challenging), +20 (Heroic), +30 (nearly impossible). Sound familiar? So the systems are the same, but C&C's emphasizes first the world as it subjectively applies to the PCs, whereas the "alternate" D&D method is careful calculation based on some kind of "objective reality." In both cases, 20th level PCs have a roughly 50/50 shot at accomplishing "heroic" tasks.

Oh, for the record, the 3.5 DMG (page 30) does say, "For extremely favorable or unfavorable circumstances, you can use modifiers greater than +2 and less than -2. For example, you can decide that a task is practically impossible and modify the roll or the DC by 20. Feel free to modify these numbers as you see fit, using modifiers from 2 to 20." So it is a bit handwavey, but there are so many examples presented that two DMs who actually read the 3e rules are likely to be in the same ballpark.

This gets to what I was saying above. D&D 3e spends a lot of time trying to teach DMs how to fairly present a consistent world. C&C spends its time focusing on "presenting" level-appropriate challenges. Personally, I hate the concept of "level-appropriate" challenges - it's one beef I have with D&D's CR system. Although I understand why it exists - more of that "teaching DMs how to be fair."

And if you use your D&D experience to guide your C&C rulings, then D&D did its job, you're just ungrateful.


----------



## buzz

Ourph said:
			
		

> But I'm not talking about ignoring rules, in any system.  My point is that a DM is required to set DCs in D&D just as CKs are required to set TNs in C&C.



It's important to note that it's not _just_ the DM setting the DCs, though. Most DCs, in at least a basic way, are set by rules that all players have access to.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> A D&D player who assumes he knows which modifiers apply in any given situation is just as likely to run into problems as a C&C player who fails to communicate with his CK about the difficulty of a task before attempting it.



I'm not saying that a D&D player can go in blind; of course they need to communicate with the DM. However, a D&D player can look at a 20' chasm drawn on a battlemat (i.e., info from the DM) at at least know a basic DC for a jump before the DM says anything. If the DC is set wholly by fiat, I don't know anything wihtout asking the DM.


----------



## buzz

Campbell said:
			
		

> You guys have gotten me jonesing to run HERO again.



My work here is done.


----------



## Akrasia

Psion said:
			
		

> Sorry. Would you prefer a "flurry"?




I guess I don't understand what point you're trying to make with terms like 'rash' and 'flurry'.  IME there are plenty of fans of 'rules light' (or 'lighter-than-3') games around.  Why view them as a 'rash' or 'flurry'?  Why not just recognize them as an established segment of the RPG community?


			
				Psion said:
			
		

> I'm not dismissive of those who PLAY rules light games. Those who spend time prostelyzing the evils of the chains of rules heavy games, on the other hand, I must confess annoy me.




Well, they could just be expressing their frustrations concerning rules heavy games, and do not mean to refer to them as 'evil'.

I suspect that this is simply a matter of perception.  Your own comments in favour of 'rules heavy' games could be interpreted as 'prostelyzing the evils of the arbitrariness of rules light games', even though I do not think that that is your intent.


----------



## buzz

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> It's obvious you have no trust of Game Masters.  They are impartial participants, referees of the action.



It's not a trust issue. It's not wanting to pay money to play "Mother, may I?"


----------



## Ourph

buzz said:
			
		

> I'm saying that it sounds like the player _has_ to ask, becasue otherwise they have no idea whether their PC is capable of making the jump.




And I'm saying that, despite the fact that there are codified modifiers in the RAW, the fact that the RAW also leaves the final DC ultimately in the hands of the DM means that a D&D player also has to ask, otherwise he has no idea whether his PC is capable of making the jump.  The codified modifiers are a safety blanket for players who fear crappy GMs.  They do not, in fact, keep crappy GMs from screwing up the game - because the GM is empowered to decide which modifiers come into play and is also empowered to provide his own situational "circumstance" modifiers.  



> I can look at the battlemap and know exactly what the distance is, whether there's room for a running start, and (with most DMs I play with, including me) see where hindered terrain is marked.




Does your DM draw out hindered terrain your player can't see?  Does your DM draw out wind currents?  Does your DM draw out invisible barriers?  There is always the possibility you know less than you think you do.  Interaction with the DM is the only sure way to know what modifiers apply and even then you may not be entitled to know some of them until the action is attempted.




> If the DM is adding a +5 because of a draft, she's totally making up a rule, and picking a modifier that's way beyond the +2/-2 "DM's buddy".




The "DM's buddy" is not a rule, it is a suggested guideline (it describes itself as such).  The same exact section of the rules makes it quite clear that the DM can set modifiers beyond +/-2 and/or may set multiple +/-2 modifiers.  It's obvious from the RAW that the enumerated modifiers are concrete but that those are not the only modifiers allowed and that the DM is ultimately in charge of setting the DC for any task.




> Sure, I need info about the surroundings from the DM, but at least that info has meaning in rules terms. Your description of C&C makes it sound like the numbers on the sheet don't really tell me anything, because the guidelines for the jump's TN exist solely in the GM's head.




My point is, so does the DC in a D&D game.  The guidelines may be concrete, but the ultimate number is still based on a DM judgement call.




> Because in the C&C you describe, the player knows _absolutely nothing_ about their chances to make the jump until they ask the GM.




I think you keep making the mistake that I'm saying C&C isn't arbitrary.  I'm not.  C&C is arbitrary; and (despite the facade of enumerated modifiers in the rulebooks) so is D&D by the RAW.  The DM sets the DC, whatever modifiers pertain to a situation, pertain because he has decided that the situation includes the factors that trigger those modifiers.



> The point is that there is a system being used, and as a player, I can see how the DC was arrived at, i.e., there's a codified rationale.




Yes, the DM can tell you X, Y and Z situation exists and you can look in the rulebook and see that X,Y and Z situations give certain modifiers.  The DM is still making the decision about which situations exist.  The process is no less "arbitrary" than C&C, it just takes a more obscure form that gives the illusion that the DM is somehow constrained and that the players are somehow empowered.  It may very well make some players feel more comfortable, but it really changes nothing.




> Actually, that's pretty much how the jump rules work.




As I said, the formula sets the base DC, it doesn't set the final DC.  The DM sets the final DC by deciding which modifiers apply and which don't.  If the DM decides no modifiers apply and that the DC set forth in the formula is the one he will use, it's still the DM making the decision - not the formula in the rulebooks.  Deciding not to change the base DC is still making a decision.  The point being, until a player consults the DM, he doesn't know whether the base DC supplied by the rules is valid or not.



> But the modifiers are pertty much codified, and will generally not vary because, say, the GM has had a bad day, or feels like going easy on me, or has bad spatial skills, or doesn't buy my argument as to why my PC should succeed.




The modifiers may not vary because your GM has had a bad day or because your GM feels like going easy on you, but I don't believe for a minute that the final DC won't vary depending on those variables if it would vary according to those things in a rules-lite system where the modifiers aren't spelled out.

If you've got a GM who cares about being impartial, fair and consistent, he's going to be so whether he's using D&D or C&C as his system.  If you've got a GM who is out to screw you or create his story independent of what the dice roll, he's going to do it whether he's using D&D or C&C as his system.  I know it may feel that way, but the rules cannot protect you from bad GMing.



> I'm not saying that a D&D player can go in blind; of course they need to communicate with the DM. However, a D&D player can look at a 20' chasm drawn on a battlemat (i.e., info from the DM) at at least know a basic DC for a jump before the DM says anything. If the DC is set wholly by fiat, I don't know anything wihtout asking the DM.




What I'm saying is, I don't see a discernable difference between the two.  Both require the player to communicate with the DM and (with any kind of a decent DM) asking should get both players to the same place (i.e. - having a reasonable idea of how likely he is to succeed at a specific task).  With a lousy DM, both players still end up in the same place as well.  

What I'm getting from you is that you think the guidelines provided by D&D will take a bad GM, who would normally make arbitrary and unfair judgements during the game, and turn him into a decent GM; and that, conversely, a GM who runs a fair, reasonable D&D game will suddenly become unfair and arbitrary if he starts using a rules-lite system like C&C.  I disagree that system can fix a lousy DM or ruin a good one.


----------



## Akrasia

Ourph said:
			
		

> ...
> How are these two systems significantly different in the level of DM judgement required to resolve the situation?  I suggest all of the extra rules and numbers are simply a screen that gives players the illusion that the DM is constrained in setting the difficulty.  There's no real benefit in terms of how likely a player is to know his chances of success.



Exactly.  Great point!  

The claim that 3e somehow 'empowers' players has always struck me as bogus.


			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> ...
> I have no proof and this is merely my opinion, but I suspect if you took the same DM and had him run a game with both rulesets and the same exact situation came up, the Target Number for the C&C game would not deviate significantly from the modified DC required to succeed in the D&D game.  In other words, I suspect the DM has a preset idea in his head about how difficult certain tasks should be and will use whatever system of task difficulty modifiers the rules present him with to achieve a result that fits his preconceived notion of how easily the task should be accomplished.  In D&D, the DM does so one level removed from the difficulty (by manipulating the environment in which the modifiers are applied) and in C&C the CK does so by directly modifying the difficulty, but the end result as far as the player is concerned is the same.




CORRECT (IME). 

I have DM'ed 3e and CK'ed C&C.  I can say that the way in which I assigned DCs/TNs in both games is exactly the same.


----------



## Psion

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I guess I don't understand what point you're trying to make with terms like 'rash' and 'flurry'.




Flurry:
n. 2: A sudden burst or commotion; a stir: a flurry of interest in the new product; a flurry of activity when the plane landed.

I'm not sure what you are after here.



> I suspect that this is simply a matter of perception.  Your own comments in favour of 'rules heavy' games could be interpreted as 'prostelyzing the evils of the arbitrariness of rules light games', even though I do not think that that is your intent.




You may see it that way, but I don't. I feel as if I am on the defensive. And I feel as if I have been sensitive to the fact that different people have different needs and values in games. And if what gets you upset is the term "rash", then I think by an large I am succeeding.

I have a confession to make: I was a prostelyzer. Not an anti-rules light prostelyzer or anti-C&C prostelyzer. But an anti-GURPS prostelyzer. I would not hesitate in raising my voice whenever someone recommended GURPS for something, expressing how I felt the game was SOOOO inadequate. It was only in hindsight that I realized what a goob I was being.

But I see a few argumentative C&C fans that pop up here and can't but restrain themselves but launch all assault on my choices in game. And I see in them the me of the past.

Those that don't do this -- those I am not including in the term "validators" -- I have no beef with.


----------



## BryonD

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I suspect that this is simply a matter of perception.  Your own comments in favour of 'rules heavy' games could be interpreted as 'prostelyzing the evils of the arbitrariness of rules light games', even though I do not think that that is your intent.




You know, I really don't see that much interpreting was required to get the attack tone of Ace's comment which just a few posts prior you quoting expressing your complete agreement. I don't see the equivalent coming from Psion without the support of radical interpretation.

FWIW I found the comment to be laughably at odds with multiple personal experiences.  It is the kids games that tend to be Attack Kill Take Repeat, what more rules do I need?  It's only once you get the FEEL of more complex aspects of the game that more robust rules become rewarding.  That isn't to say that rule lite is at all an automatic non-comple game matter.  It is much more complex than that.  But the opposite claim is pattently absurd.


----------



## John Morrow

Mallus said:
			
		

> Do I need to specify that I'm talking about situations the rules don't cover? Complex situations like framing a noble, undermining a rival nations ecomony, forming a alliance of free kingdoms against an empire, heck, even something as simple as breaking into an estate or storming a castle...




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.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> That's precisely what I meant by 'the DM decides how _well_ the plan will work'. I assume that the difficulty of those situations will somehow relate to what the DM thought --oh so subjectively-- of the players plan(s).




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".)



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> See now I haven't. They sound really interesting, and I have at least two friends who'd love that sort of game environment. But I speaking strictly out of my experience playing D&D...




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.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Akrasia said:
			
		

> This is an excellent point, and certainly conforms to my own experience.




Of course you do.  The poster you responded to just said "rules-light games are for *mature* players; rules-heavy games are for *immature* players."

It appeals to your inner snob (which we all have).


----------



## buzz

Ourph said:
			
		

> The codified modifiers are a safety blanket for players who fear crappy GMs.



This seems to be the crux of many a pro-rules-lite argument, and I don't know if I buy it. A crappy GM can ruin any game, regardless of system. But in talking system, I think we have to assume that the GM in question is using the RAW (otherwise we're critiquing the GM, not the system).

Using the D&D RAW, the players and DM share a frame of reference. The frame of reference doesn't preclude communication, and, yes, the player can't necessarily know _everything_ about a given situation (e.g., an invisible barrier their PC can't see*), so this communication is necessary. I don't see that this communication is tantamount to fiat, though.

It may simply come down to play styles. In the games I play, none of the GMs are playing so fast and loose with the rules that every assessment of a situation I make is a crapshoot.


* Which, BTW, would not affect a jump DC; the PC would smack into it before they even got to make the jump.


----------



## Ourph

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Of course you do.  The poster you responded to just said "rules-light games are for *mature* players; rules-heavy games are for *immature* players."




Excuse me.  Where exactly did I say that in the text that Akrasia quoted?


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> It's obvious you have no trust of Game Masters.  They are impartial participants, referees of the action.




I don't know what they 'are' - any more than sports referees are only theoretically impartial - but in principle, I certainly think this is what they should aspire to be.

Aside from deciding in-character (that is, NPC) actions or comments (and that using in-character knowledge), that's exactly what I try to be while GMing.  I can't imagine why I would want to do otherwise, still less why anyone would want to play under someone who wasn't attempting to be impartial!


----------



## Psion

Ourph said:
			
		

> The codified modifiers are a safety blanket for players who fear crappy GMs.




The codified modifiers are a *tool* for participants who *realize that GMs are human, too.*


----------



## Ourph

buzz said:
			
		

> * Which, BTW, would not affect a jump DC; the PC would smack into it before they even got to make the jump.




No no no no.....the invisible barrier goes in the middle of the chasm, so that the PC smacks into it halfway through the jump and slides into the pit.  Otherwise, the pit monster would go hungry.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Ourph said:
			
		

> Excuse me.  Where exactly did I say that in the text that Akrasia quoted?




Check again - it's not your post that Akrasia was responding to.


----------



## Akrasia

Psion said:
			
		

> Flurry:
> n. 2: A sudden burst or commotion; a stir: a flurry of interest in the new product; a flurry of activity when the plane landed.
> 
> I'm not sure what you are after here.




I am not 'after' anything.  I just think that the community of gamers who prefer games that are 'ighter' than 3e is pretty well established, and is not a 'flurry' or a 'new' phenomenon.  (The fact that there are now more products catering to this segment of the market is perhaps 'new'.)  By using terms like 'rash' or 'flurry', you appear to imply that the interest in such games is some kind of 'fad'.


			
				Psion said:
			
		

> You may see it that way, but I don't. I feel as if I am on the defensive.




That was exactly my original point.  Many fans of C&C (or other 'lighter' games) feel 'defensive' at ENworld.  The fact that you 'feel' that you are on the defensive is the result of your own preferences and gaming commitments -- and your response to what you *perceive* to be attacks on them.



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> But I see a few argumentative C&C fans that pop up here and can't but restrain themselves but launch all assault on my choices in game.
> ...




Well, there is immature behaviour on both sides IME -- many of the attacks on C&C, rules lighter games in general, have been pretty hostile and unjustified.  (I'm not accusing you of taking part in such attacks, I am just pointing out that the lack of respect isn't one-sided.)


----------



## Ourph

Psion said:
			
		

> The codified modifiers are a *tool* for participants who *realize that GMs are human, too.*




Which is exactly my point.  It doesn't matter whether you're playing D&D or C&C, the same imperfect human being is running the game in either case.  If the rules empower a D&D DM to set the final DC and a C&C CK to do the same and you feel you cannot trust that human being to be fair, impartial and reasonable while playing one of those rulesets, would you really feel differently if you simply switched games?  Would the reverse be true (i.e. - would you stop trusting someone who had shown themselves to be fair, impartial and reasonable if you switched games)?


----------



## Ourph

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Check again - it's not your post that Akrasia was responding to.




Sorry.    

When Akrasia goes around agreeing with me I get confused.


----------



## fredramsey

Tee-hee. 10 second round. Wow.

1st Edtion AD&D, bub. 1 minute rounds. And the inches in 1st Edition AD&D had absolutely nothing to do with a battle mat. Lookit the @#$% up.




			
				buzz said:
			
		

> So you played on half-inch squares? IIRC, 1e is all 1" = 10'. And all your characters were unencumbered humans? Doing nothing but moving each 10-secoond round? And you never had to use segments?
> 
> 
> If positioning matters, you're talking tactical. 1e had both positioning and facing, ergo, tactical (IMO).


----------



## Akrasia

BryonD said:
			
		

> You know, I really don't see that much interpreting was required to get the attack tone of Ace's comment which just a few posts prior you quoting expressing your complete agreement.




I merely pointed out that Ace's observation was supported by my own experience.  I would not have expressed my own experience in exactly the same way that he did, but I did find that it rang of truth.

What is your problem with that?

More generally, I *do* think that it takes experienced players to enjoy a 'rules lighter' game.  Inexperienced players simply need more structure.  Moreover, older players have less time to devote to RPGs.  Hence it makes perfect sense to me that older (30+) players who are experienced with RPGs might be attracted to 'rules lighter' RPGs.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> FWIW I found the comment to be laughably at odds with multiple personal experiences.




You are legion? 
  :\


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Ourph said:
			
		

> No no no no.....the invisible barrier goes in the middle of the chasm, so that the PC smacks into it halfway through the jump and slides into the pit.  Otherwise, the pit monster would go hungry.




Even then, it's not modifying the Jump check.

And if the PC didn't "know" he could easily jump across, he might be more cautious and thus discover the invisible barrier.  

There you have it - conclusive proof that rules-heavy/robust/sufficient systems feed pit monsters better.


----------



## JohnSnow

And of course the primary activity of _Castles & Crusades_ fans is to be not Pro-C&C, but anti-3e. In other words, they crop up and throw out their two cents about how the game "should be." Since the intro to that game's player's handbook contains some of this derogatory language about the "current edition," it's clear that C&C's creators feel that bashing 3e is necessary to sell C&C. So it's not surprising that its supporters adopt this stance. Then they cite, as a source, Gary Gygax, who is on record as saying that 3e is not the game "he invented," and that it lacks the "elegance" of his creation. Mr. Gygax is entitled to his opinion, and certainly the first part of the statement is true (that 3e is not the game Gary invented anymore).

So the C&C proselytizers show up, screaming about how C&C is "better" than 3e, and even make statements like "rules-heavy games are intended to appeal to children. IME, Real Gamers (TM) like deep-immersion storytelling and only need a minimal amount of rules."

I could easily counter that with the following statement: if you think the D&D rules are too complicated, you have a bad memory and/or you can't do math. However, that is obviously just being pejorative and childish. Personally, I don't need a game system to tell me how to roleplay. What I would like it to do is provide an appropriate conflict-resolution system for the situations that arise. Ideally, that resolution system will provide logical, believable, and consistent rulings. Let me repharse that: the SYSTEM (if correctly followed) will provide logical and consistent rulings. Obviously, some situations are going to be "outside" the system. But ideally, that should not be the case the majority of the time. If you're constantly encountering a situation the specifics of which are not covered by the system, you either make up a rule that becomes part of your game (adding another rule to your game) or you handwave it differently every time and your game isn't consistent. If you have a very good memory and can make up a rule for every situation that arises, and recall that rule the next time the same situation arises, you're a walking rulebook...or a professional game designer.

Gygax, for the record, may very well be one of the few people in this latter category. By contrast, most DMs, despite their opinion of themselves, are not.

Can't we as gamers just accept that some people prefer "rules-heavier" and that others prefer "rules-lighter" without applying value judgements?



			
				Ace said:
			
		

> I am also of the opinion that younger gamers (12 to say 24 maybe) want and need more rules. Not only do they often have (in case of the kids anyway) less social maturity and dispute resolution skills the type of game they need is different
> 
> Younger kids want and need conflict resolution driven games like most D&D -- kick in the door-- kill the critter-- take stuff -- power up-- repeat is nearly an ideal set up for them. They also often have more time to play and prep so the rules help them
> 
> Gamers as their tastes change often find this model less satisfactory.
> 
> Older gamers in particular (30+ ) often have less time or interest in the mechanical set up of games and many are able to handle a more complex social contract.




I guess not.

Is a complex social contract that produces cooperative storytelling a game? Or is it interactive theater?

I would argue that a good DM and their, presumably, intelligent players learn the rules and don't have to keep looking things up. This DM ad-hoccing can be accomplished without a new game system. Of course, that wouldn't give people any incentive to buy books from Troll Lord Games. Seriously, other than its pseudo-THAC0 skill system and its very elegant saving throw system (which I hope D&D adopts), what does C&C ADD to the d20 experience?

Just curious.

EDITED: Ace, that would be the text I just quoted.


----------



## Akrasia

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Of course you do.  The poster you responded to just said "rules-light games are for *mature* players; rules-heavy games are for *immature* players."
> 
> It appeals to your inner snob (which we all have).




My snobbishness is not 'inner' -- it is a permanent visible aura.


----------



## Faraer

Akrasia said:
			
		

> More generally, I *do* think that it takes experienced players to enjoy a 'rules lighter' game.  Inexperienced players simply need more structure.



I don't agree with that at all. Inexperienced players who are introduced to RPGs as souped-up boardgames or videogames expect structure, and are frequently put off roleplaying when it comes in 300-page books which have no precedent in their experience. Inexperienced players who are introduced to RPGs in a roleplaying-over-rules way have no such expectation, and usually, in my experience, no such problem.


----------



## painandgreed

Speaking of "rules lite", does anybody else remember Dinky Dungeons? Little xeroxed book with rules involving three stats that all came in a little 3"X5" bag with some little dice. All for $1. That's what I think of when I hear "rules lite'.


----------



## John Morrow

Ourph said:
			
		

> And I'm saying that, despite the fact that there are codified modifiers in the RAW, the fact that the RAW also leaves the final DC ultimately in the hands of the DM means that a D&D player also has to ask, otherwise he has no idea whether his PC is capable of making the jump.  The codified modifiers are a safety blanket for players who fear crappy GMs.  They do not, in fact, keep crappy GMs from screwing up the game - because the GM is empowered to decide which modifiers come into play and is also empowered to provide his own situational "circumstance" modifiers.




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.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Does your DM draw out hindered terrain your player can't see?  Does your DM draw out wind currents?  Does your DM draw out invisible barriers?  There is always the possibility you know less than you think you do.  Interaction with the DM is the only sure way to know what modifiers apply and even then you may not be entitled to know some of them until the action is attempted.




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 _to even seriously consider the action_.  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.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> My point is, so does the DC in a D&D game.  The guidelines may be concrete, but the ultimate number is still based on a DM judgement call.




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)?



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Yes, the DM can tell you X, Y and Z situation exists and you can look in the rulebook and see that X,Y and Z situations give certain modifiers.  The DM is still making the decision about which situations exist.  The process is no less "arbitrary" than C&C, it just takes a more obscure form that gives the illusion that the DM is somehow constrained and that the players are somehow empowered.  It may very well make some players feel more comfortable, but it really changes nothing.




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 _can't do_ with a rule-light game.  



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Deciding not to change the base DC is still making a decision.  The point being, until a player consults the DM, he doesn't know whether the base DC supplied by the rules is valid or not.




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 _does not exist_ for a rule-light game unless the GM makes it up.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> The modifiers may not vary because your GM has had a bad day or because your GM feels like going easy on you, but I don't believe for a minute that the final DC won't vary depending on those variables if it would vary according to those things in a liter system where the modifiers aren't spelled out.




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.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> If you've got a GM who cares about being impartial, fair and consistent, he's going to be so whether he's using D&D or C&C as his system.  If you've got a GM who is out to screw you or create his story independent of what the dice roll, he's going to do it whether he's using D&D or C&C as his system.  I know it may feel that way, but the rules cannot protect you from bad GMing.  They just can't.




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.


----------



## Silverleaf

John Morrow said:
			
		

> The "mother may I" problem that my group has (and we've played plenty of rules-light games using homebrew rules and Fudge) isn't so much a matter of permission but achieving a common understanding about what's likely to happen.  If the GM thinks that jumping from the balcony, swinging from the chandelier, and kicking the BBEG is really hard and likely to fail while the player thinks it's really easy and likely to succeed, there can be a big problem when the player player states the action and then the GM resolves in a very different way than expected.  The solution, in my experience, is for the player to play what I call "20 questions" with the GM to evaluate their options and make sure the see things eye-to-eye with the GM.




It's really very simple...  You tell the player what his odds are before actually resolving the action.  You also tell him why you came up with those odds, in case there is a "reality mismatch" at play (maybe the DM forgot something?).  Frex: "Okay DEX check at -2 to jump and grab the chandelier (there isn't much running room) and a straight to-hit roll to nail Bargle while he's busy twirling his mustache."
And in any event, the player will ask questions no matter how heavy/light the game is.  In the above scenario he'll probably want to know how far up the balcony is, and how far away the chandelier is.  He needs that data to get a feel for how plausible swinging accross the room might be, possibly before even thinking of such an action.  Or alternately, he could simply ask "What are my odds (or the DC) to swing from the chandelier?".  It's not like the game is going to have hard data and preset odds for that kind of scenario.  Unless of course you're playing Rolemaster Standard System, and you use the skill Athletics->Swing->Chandelier. 
Once he comes up with a course of action, you tell him his odds, just like you would tell him the DC in 3e.  Then he makes his decision, and dice are rolled, or not.  It's effectively the same thing, except rules heavy systems give you an illusion of realism/consistency at the expense of "standardizing" certain actions (which is something some people like, and others don't).


----------



## Campbell

It's threads like these that make me miss Hong's presence.

Campbell "You Miss Him Too" Ooi


----------



## John Morrow

Faraer said:
			
		

> Inexperienced players who are introduced to RPGs in a roleplaying-over-rules way have no such expectation, and usually, in my experience, no such problem.




Have you ever seen an entire group of inexperienced gamers pick up and successfully use a rule-light system without an experienced gamer to tell them what to do or to GM?


----------



## Faraer

John Morrow said:
			
		

> Have you ever seen an entire group of inexperienced gamers pick up and successfully use a rule-light system without an experienced gamer to tell them what to do or to GM?



No, but then I've never seen that (stood by and let it happen) with a more complex system, either. Philosophically, though, storytelling is a basic human function -- stories are integral to every human culture. Complex skirmish wargames with dice are not. But my point was just as much to do with the central importance in all this of expectations, environment, and social relations -- of set and setting.


----------



## Akrasia

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> And of course the primary activity of _Castles & Crusades_ fans is to be not Pro-C&C, but anti-3e. In other words, they crop up and throw out their two cents about how the game "should be."




Well, people who like C&C want to explain *why* they like the game -- and this inevitably involves comparisons with 3e.  The games are quite similar, and they have a common source, so comparisons are inevitable.  This might be perceived as 'bashing' 3e, even when it is not intended as such (though, to be fair, I am sure that many people *do* want to bash games they don't like -- whether it be C&C or 3e).



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Since the intro to that game's player's handbook contains some of this derogatory language about the "current edition," it's clear that C&C's creators feel that bashing 3e is necessary to sell C&C.




Sorry, John, but this is a 'creative interpretation' on your part.

There is *no* reference to the "current edition" in the intro.  There *is* a comment that "a glut of rules" is an impediment to a fun game, but at no place is there a reference to 3e (explicit or implicit).  The comments in the intro have to do with explaining the design goals of C&C, not "bashing" any particular other system.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Let me repharse that: the SYSTEM (if correctly followed) will provide logical and consistent rulings.




And this is NOT a difference between rules-heavy(ish) systems and rules-light(ish) systems.  The latter games merely provide more general mechanisms to provide consistent rulings (i.e. mechanisms that have less detail).

If you want a 'simulationist' game, rules light is not the way to go.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Seriously, other than its pseudo-THAC0 skill system




Huh?  You keep making this bizarre claim.  I have yet to understand the relation between the SIEGE system and THACO.

SIEGE: A character rolls 1d20, adds level (if appropriate), and tries to beat 18 (if nonprime) or 12 (if prime) +/- difficulty modifiers.  How is that THAC0?


----------



## John Morrow

Silverleaf said:
			
		

> It's really very simple...  You tell the player what his odds are before actually resolving the action.  You also tell him why you came up with those odds, in case there is a "reality mismatch" at play (maybe the DM forgot something?).  Frex: "Okay DEX check at -2 to jump and grab the chandelier (there isn't much running room) and a straight to-hit roll to nail Bargle while he's busy twirling his mustache."




OK.  I'm the player.  I'm deciding what my character might do.  I'm a fairly creative person and the chandelier swing is only one of about 20 things I can think of, thus I must repeat this excercise maybe 20 times before I can decide what my character does, and I have to wait for the GM to become available so that I can play the 20 questions game before making my final decision.  And that's not even taking into account what happens if someone at the table wants to take issue with the GMs assessment.



			
				Silverleaf said:
			
		

> And in any event, the player will ask questions no matter how heavy/light the game is.  In the above scenario he'll probably want to know how far up the balcony is, and how far away the chandelier is.  He needs that data to get a feel for how plausible swinging accross the room might be, possibly before even thinking of such an action.




It's not a matter of asking questions but how many questions must be asked.  Having to ask 20 questions before deciding what do to involves a lot more overhead and game disruption than asking 2 questions to clarify the scene.  And If the GM has drawn out the room on the battle mat and I have a marker with my character, I can figure out on my own how far away the chandelier is, how far up the balcony is, etc. 



			
				Silverleaf said:
			
		

> Or alternately, he could simply ask "What are my odds (or the DC) to swing from the chandelier?".  It's not like the game is going to have hard data and preset odds for that kind of scenario.  Unless of course you're playing Rolemaster Standard System, and you use the skill Athletics->Swing->Chandelier.




No, but I'm more likely to know which skill or attribute I'll be using in a rule-heavy game than a rule-light game (and note that I'm not sure that I'd consider C&C "rule-light" -- I'm thinking more Risus or Fudge).  I'm also more likely to know how much damage my character might take if they fall off the chandelier, what it might mean if they find themself standing between 4 opponents if they fall, etc.  Remember, I've played both rule-heavy and rule-light games and like rule-light games quite a bit.  This is not a hypothetical problem for me.  It's a very real problem, one that's driving half the people I role-play with to want more rule-heavy systems like d20 and Hero. 



			
				Silverleaf said:
			
		

> Once he comes up with a course of action, you tell him his odds, just like you would tell him the DC in 3e.  Then he makes his decision, and dice are rolled, or not.  It's effectively the same thing, except rules heavy systems give you an illusion of realism/consistency at the expense of "standardizing" certain actions (which is something some people like, and others don't).




In the rule-heavy system, I mentally assess the odds for dozens of possible scenarios while the GM is resolving some other player's actions.  And it's not the illusion of consistency.  In my experience, it really does create a level of consistency and common understanding that you won't find in rule-light games.  YMMV.  As for "standardizing", rule-light games have their own problems.

I'm not trying to say that rule-light games aren't awful.  I'm trying to say that rules have their purposes and they aren't all simply illusions.


----------



## Akrasia

Faraer said:
			
		

> I don't agree with that at all. Inexperienced players who are introduced to RPGs as souped-up boardgames or videogames expect structure, and are frequently put off roleplaying when it comes in 300-page books which have no precedent in their experience. Inexperienced players who are introduced to RPGs in a roleplaying-over-rules way have no such expectation, and usually, in my experience, no such problem.




I don't think your observation here contradicts my claim.  My point is that ONCE people have decided to play RPGs, it takes an experienced GM (and players who trust each other) to run a good 'rules light' game.  In contrast, an inexperienced GM, and players who view the game in a more 'competitive' manner, need lots of rules and guidelines (the GM in order to run the game in a satisfactory manner, the players in order to resolve disputes).

Note that my observation here is perfectly compatible with experienced players and GMs ALSO liking rules heavy games.

As for getting people to try RPGs in the FIRST place, your observation looks spot on (and hence the new 3e Basic Set).


----------



## Turanil

In any case, nobody can deny that this thread is extremely post-heavy. Not sure the debate has improve a lot because of this abundance of heavy posts though...


----------



## John Morrow

Faraer said:
			
		

> No, but then I've never seen that (stood by and let it happen) with a more complex system, either.




I learned D&D and Traveller from the books.  Noboby taught me how to use a role-play system.  I taught myself.  In many ways, I think it was a good thing because I never picked up a lot of the trauma or biases that others seem to have picked up from the people who taught them how to play a certain way.



			
				Faraer said:
			
		

> Philosophically, though, storytelling is a basic human function -- stories are integral to every human culture. Complex skirmish wargames with dice are not. But my point was just as much to do with the central importance in all this of expectations, environment, and social relations -- of set and setting.




In many ways, my earliest role-playing games were an extension of the creative games I had been playing up until that point with action figures and toy cars.  It added in the features of specialized record keeping and character definition (character sheets), procedures for objectively resolving actions (rules), ways to surprise the participants with uncertainty (random rolls and random tables), and lists of abilities, skills, equipment, and such to generate ideas.  As such, I have a pretty good idea of what attracted me to role-playing rules over two decades ago as a beginner.  Yes, beginners can learn with a system lighter than 3e but I suspect the really light systems like Fudge or Risus would leave a lot of beginners feeling lost.


----------



## Akrasia

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I would argue that a good DM and their, presumably, intelligent players learn the rules and don't have to keep looking things up.




It is a lot easier to learn the rules if they are succinct.


			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> This DM ad-hoccing can be accomplished without a new game system. Of course, that wouldn't give people any incentive to buy books from Troll Lord Games.




I don't understand what this means.


			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Seriously, other than its pseudo-THAC0 skill system and its very elegant saving throw system (which I hope D&D adopts), what does C&C ADD to the d20 experience?
> 
> Just curious.




Speaking from experience as a CK, C&C does three things:

(a.) Makes my prep time more manageable and even enjoyable; 
(b.) Lets me fit a lot more 'adventuring' into limited 3-4 hour long sessions (since combat takes *much* less time); and
(c.) Lets me use all my pre-3e D&D stuff with little/no conversion work.

During our games together, John, I noticed that we got through at least 50 percent more 'adventuring' after we switched over to C&C for my second campaign.  (The last few 3e sessions also covered a fair bit of territory, but that was mainly because I designed them so that they had very little combat.)


----------



## Faraer

You know, I taught myself as well, and I guess Basic D&D counts as 'rules-light' here (it isn't in my personal spectrum).

Picking up any medium from scratch is hard -- and the fact that the medium of roleplaying is new to most people (though much of what it consists of is not) is itself an unusual and extremely biasing factor. 'Both' types of games have real and someone different difficulties in learning, no doubt. But given that it's the D&D model that has the brand-awareness, and that RPGs have always been introduced to young new players as super-boardgames, the people who play them -- and who are discussing them now -- are inevitably skewed towards those who think that way whether by outlook or training.


----------



## Ourph

John Morrow said:
			
		

> 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.




The rules (as far as D&D goes) specifically tell a DM to apply modifiers he deems are appropriate.  The DM decides which of the codified ones to use and whether to add any non-codified ones.  Those *ARE* the RAW.  So the DM and players still need to share a common "assessment of reality" for things to click.

When that happens, it doesn't matter whether the codified modifiers are there or not.  A rules-lite game where the DM and players share a similar "assessment of reality" is not noticeably different to the participants than a rules-heavy game.



> 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.




If you approach it from the perspective of asking the DM "I would like to do X, what are my chances of success?" then the two are not noticeably different.



> all you are really saying is that running d20 like a rule-light system has all the same problems as a rule-light system.




You're putting words in my mouth that are going to obfuscate the argument.  I'm not using D&D as an example based on running it rules-lite.  I'm saying that both rules-lite and rules-heavy systems require DM judgement calls at some level.  D&D and C&C both require them, but they tend to occur at different systemic levels.  I'm not asserting that the two systems are similar, I'm saying that the differences in the systems don't really seem (to me) to make a difference in the level of DM judgement necessary to arrive at a ruling in most cases.



> 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




See, I don't understand why this is the base-line assumption.  The GM in a rules-lite game is just as capable of setting up a situation with pre-determined conditions and sticking to them throughout the encounter as the GM in a rules-heavy game.  I maintain that anyone who runs D&D in a consistent and fair manner, with good judgement is also capable of and likely to run C&C in exactly the same way.  The only real differences I see are that 1 - the rules-lite system lets the player know from the start that communicating with the DM is an important aspect of knowing all the relevant details; and 2 - some players feel safer when DM judgement calls are hidden behind a layer of codified rules (i.e. - when the DM makes judgements about what codified modifiers apply or don't apply, rather than simply making judgements about what the overall modifier is).



> 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.




This isn't what I'm talking about.  D&D without fudging and by the RAW still requires as much DM adjudication as a rules-lite game, it just occurs on a different level in D&D.



> Again, all you are really doing is saying that D&D can be run like a rule-light game.




Again, I'm really not.



> 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 _does not exist_ for a rule-light game unless the GM makes it up.




What you're talking about is the group coming to a consensus about what the norm is for their game.  Which is exactly my point.  This process occurs both in rules-heavy (we accept that it's the norm that the modifiers in the books are the only ones that will apply) and in rules-lite systems (we come to expect a certain range of target numbers for the tasks we perform) for every group.  The D&D RAW don't require that the DC modifiers in the books be the only ones applied.  If that's the way the DM chooses to approach the game it is just as much a judgement call as a CK setting a TN based on the suggestions in the rulebook and his own personal interpretation of what modifiers the situational factors contribute.




> The difference between a lighter system and a heavier system is that the heavier system provides a baseline.




That's just not true.  C&C provides a baseline for all checks (12 or 18).  What it doesn't do is provide codified modifiers to that baseline.  However, that doesn't negate the need for or prevent the formulation of consensus amongst the group as to what those modifiers should be.



> 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.




And I've seen different DMs running 3e D&D assign different situational modifiers to the same task, resulting in wildly different DCs.  Both were playing by the rules, they were simply using their personal judgement to determine which modifiers did and did not apply.



> 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.




Exactly, and given that the D&D RAW put the DM in the position of arbitrating which situational modifiers do and do not apply in a large number of circumstances, the game has just as much of a reuqirement for consensus as a rules-lite system would.



> 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.




I would expect someone who wanted to be consistent and predictable to be so when running C&C with no other RPG experience.  I would also expect someone who did not want or did not care about being consistent and predictable to fail to be those things when running D&D with no other RPG experience.


----------



## Silverleaf

John Morrow said:
			
		

> Have you ever seen an entire group of inexperienced gamers pick up and successfully use a rule-light system without an experienced gamer to tell them what to do or to GM?




I have, because it's how we started gaming in the early 80's.  There was nobody experienced to serve as a teacher.  A couple of us had played the solo Fighting Fantasy books, and we started using those (very light) rules to run multiplayer games.  Then we moved on to DSA (the basic book), and later Basic D&D.  And while there were plenty of fights, much time was spent in non-combat situations (mysteries, sneaking around, exploring, outsmarting, convincing, or just plain old chit-chat).


----------



## Psion

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I am not 'after' anything.  I just think that the community of gamers who prefer games that are 'ighter' than 3e is pretty well established, and is not a 'flurry' or a 'new' phenomenon.  (The fact that there are now more products catering to this segment of the market is perhaps 'new'.)  By using terms like 'rash' or 'flurry', you appear to imply that the interest in such games is some kind of 'fad'.




And I never implied that it was. I think you need to read a little more carefully:



			
				Me said:
			
		

> Too many people are out there seeking validation for their choices in gaming, and when they are outnumbered, feel a need to "prove their way better" by loudly making cases about how thier game is better.
> 
> But I would not call it theoretical at all. Right now we are in a rash of rules-light-validators, but at one time I saw an equivalent rash of rules-realistic-validators making the same case for GURPS.




As near as I can tell, you plucked out one word and chose to take offense at it. Having thorougly read and understood the rest of the paragraph or even sentence that you plucked the one word out of would have enhanced your understanding of what I was actually saying. I _was not_ referring to rules-light gamers in general as a market segment, but in particular, those that have shown up here and railed loudly against 3e (or, thrown snarky zingers around about it), something that has, indeed, been on the rise in the last month or two.

Unless you are saying that all rules-light gamers are by definition validators. I certainly don't think they are, nor did I imply such a thing.


----------



## Ourph

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Well, people who like C&C want to explain *why* they like the game -- and this inevitably involves comparisons with 3e.  The games are quite similar, and they have a common source, so comparisons are inevitable.




To be fair, I don't like either game, but in this discussion they both make reasonably convenient examples of their respective rule-density categories.  While C&C makes a convenient example in that it's 1) known by quite a few people involved in the discussion; 2) close to D&D in many respects, which makes the games easier to compare; and 3) the first rules-lite game brought up by name in the thread; it is (IMO) not a very elegant execution of a rules-lite game and suffers from bouts of rules-heavyness and rules-awkwardness in several places.


----------



## Plane Sailing

It is great that this thread has proceeded for 15 pages without breaking down into factional in-fighting (just about!), but having got bleary-eyed from reading through it all just in case I've noticed that some people are becoming a little more heated or accusatory at the moment.

Nobody wants a nice, productive discussion to be closed down, so everyone will continue to be polite, according each other the respect they would like to recieve for their own views, yes?

Thanks very much!

Cheers


----------



## SweeneyTodd

buzz said:
			
		

> It's important to note that it's not _just_ the DM setting the DCs, though. Most DCs, in at least a basic way, are set by rules that all players have access to.
> 
> I'm not saying that a D&D player can go in blind; of course they need to communicate with the DM. However, a D&D player can look at a 20' chasm drawn on a battlemat (i.e., info from the DM) at at least know a basic DC for a jump before the DM says anything. If the DC is set wholly by fiat, I don't know anything wihtout asking the DM.




Okay, I'll jump in and try this again. There are two things here:

1) C&C: GM says "There's a pit". Player says "How big?" GM says "You could probably make it, but it's a ways... DC X."

2) D&D: GM draws a battlemap, with a pit on it. Player measures it, checks the rules, determines it's DC X.


What we are trying to say is that in both cases, _the GM set the DC._, and communicated it to the players. That battlemap didn't draw on itself.  And taking it further, in both cases the pit exists because the GM put it there.

So, help me out here. Is the problem that GM-set difficulties are railroading? Because I can't get it -- if the GM wants to make it impossible to jump, or easy, or in between, he can do that either way. (The exception being that he's working from a published module, in which case the writer set the difficulty.)

Is the problem that it's unrealistic? If so, that's a valid preference -- if you mean,  "I prefer concrete situations which I can assess using the rules," then that's more of an issue that you prefer a different way of interfacing with the shared imaginative environment. 

I don't begrudge you your opinion, whatever it is, I'm just trying to understand it.

I will say that if you like detailed tactical combat, then a more complex system that focuses on that is going to work best for you. I mean, yeah, that seems obvious.


----------



## Faraer

Why are these imaginary DMs telling players what numbers they have to roll?


----------



## SweeneyTodd

Separate issue: 

Disconnects between how the various people at the table imagine the shared imaginative environment come up. It's important that they're dealt with. I don't think anyone will argue with that.

But in both cases, the way they're dealt with is communication. Whether it's by drawing things out, or asking for clarification, the important thing to do is ensure everyone is "on the same page", so to speak.

And that's just as true outside combat as it is inside it. The most awkward situations I've had in D&D involved major disconnects between how I perceived my character's personality and communication skills, and how the GM perceived them. 

So while we're at it, can we find a better way to avoid these kinds of failures of communication, in a general fashion? I ask partially because a lot of the rules-heavy advocates are also in the camp that roleplaying shouldn't include any rules at all. I know they're usually seen as a separate issue (although I don't think so), but I wonder what people think.


----------



## JohnSnow

Akrasia said:
			
		

> There is *no* reference to the "current edition" in the intro. There *is* a comment that "a glut of rules" is an impediment to a fun game, but at no place is there a reference to 3e (explicit or implicit). The comments in the intro have to do with explaining the design goals of C&C, not "bashing" any particular other system.




I confess I do not have my book with me at work. I read it last night and the edition bashing was pretty clear. I'll quote the paragraph if I can find it, but I'll come back to this later.



			
				Akrasia said:
			
		

> Huh? You keep making this bizarre claim. I have yet to understand the relation between the SIEGE system and THACO.
> 
> SIEGE: A character rolls 1d20, adds level (if appropriate), and tries to beat 18 (if nonprime) or 12 (if prime) +/- difficulty modifiers. How is that THAC0?




In THAC0, a character had to roll a certain number to hit AC0. As the character progressed, his "target number" (THAC0) decreased (A THAC0 of 19 rather than a +1 to hit). The C&C SIEGE system takes a base target number (18) and then adjusts it _downward_ to 12 if the skill is a prime. In other words, Primes in Siege give a TN of 12 vs. 18, rather than a +6 to checks) Consequently, having a Prime implies that the task is somehow easier for the character with a Prime, as opposed to the character is more skilled. This gets to the subjective, relative nature of C&C's resolution system. However, the mere fact that Primes lower the target number, _rather than raising the skill roll_ is THAC0-ish. After all the times I've explained this, if you still don't understand, I can't help you. I grant the Prime thing is a onetime issue rather than recurring and that more difficult tasks mean higher difficulty numbers, not lower ones, which is not THAC0ish. But why a lower target number rather than a bonus to the skill? Just seems weird. FWIW, the THAC0 crack was intended as a friendly jab between us, in an effort to keep this thread light...



			
				Akrasia said:
			
		

> Speaking from experience as a CK, C&C does three things:
> 
> (a.) Makes my prep time more manageable and even enjoyable;
> (b.) Lets me fit a lot more 'adventuring' into limited 3-4 hour long sessions (since combat takes *much* less time); and
> (c.) Lets me use all my pre-3e D&D stuff with little/no conversion work.




Those are things it DOES by virtue of what it _takes away_ from the Core rules of the game (as presented in the OGL that C&C is published under). I specifically asked what it "added" to the game. You gave the answers I've come to expect from C&C players - it enhances the game experience by virtue of what it removes. That's a subjective value judgement, not an objective addition of new rules.



			
				Akrasia said:
			
		

> JohnSnow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This DM ad-hoccing can be accomplished without a new game system. Of course, that wouldn't give people any incentive to buy books from Troll Lord Games.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand what this means.
Click to expand...



It means that the decision to "handwave" difficulty numbers based on the subjective criteria of easy, average, tough, challenging, heroic, is part of the Core Rules.

The decision to base all relevant skills on one's attributes and level, perhaps with some allowance for "class skills," is another simplification of the core rules (and one that was presented in the OGL _Unearthed Arcana_.

Taking out feats is a simplification of the Core Rules. So is removing attacks of opportunity from combat.

C&C, for all its assertions, is 3e stripped of its skill and feat systems, and one of its more complex combat rules (attacks of opportunity). That's it. The designers then looked at C&C's classes and realized that _without_ those 3e elements, they were out of whack. So they borrowed the XP progression tables from AD&D and claimed that those somehow brought the classes back into balance. Or more accurately, that even though they were out of balance, the differerent XP progressions somehow "compensated" for that. Finally, the Trolls added in an ultra-simplistic skill system that they gave a clever name too (SIEGE), because a system that says "your PC has no skills" isn't one players will play for long.

I don't need C&C to play rules light D&D. I can do that without buying it. But I can't make money telling people to play their D&D game and throw out large portions of the rules. And neither could Troll Lord Games. So instead, they published a rulebook. One which, I'd bet, sold primarily to people who already owned the Core Rules.

I freely admit and give credit to the Trolls for inventive marketing. Wizards of the Coast couldn't make money selling rules-light D&D, which is why they give the rules away for FREE (the SRD).

I'm amazed (and impressed) that Troll Lord Games can.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> Okay, I'll jump in and try this again. There are two things here:
> 
> 1) C&C: GM says "There's a pit". Player says "How big?" GM says "You could probably make it, but it's a ways... DC X."
> 
> 2) D&D: GM draws a battlemap, with a pit on it. Player measures it, checks the rules, determines it's DC X.
> 
> What we are trying to say is that in both cases, _the GM set the DC._, and communicated it to the players. That battlemap didn't draw on itself.  And taking it further, in both cases the pit exists because the GM put it there.




I'd prefer to frame this in terms of C&C and D&D, since, honestly, I dislike the former and find the latter, at best, decent.  But, I'll do it for this specific example.

1) C&C: The pit exists independent of anything BUT the GM's assessment of my character's ability to cross it.  Its defining feature is that it is, in fact, DC _x_ to cross.  You could even call it DC _x_ wide.

2) D&D: The pit is a defined width in squares, possibly more clearly defined in feet (although as a GM, I would try to avoid that).  It exists independent of my ability to cross it.  The GM can create it without knowing my ability to cross it.  Its traits include being DC _x_ to Jump across.

However, being DC _x_ has automatic consequences, such as being either small enough that reach weapons can cross it or too large for them to do so, how far one would have to throw a weapon to strike a target on the other side, how far one would have to throw a grappling hook to bridge it, whether or not it has enough room in it for me to bull rush an ogre into it, whether it's wide enough for a gelatinous cube to fall into it.

This has two consequences:

The GM may have made the pit in 2) "DC _x_" to account for any one of those reasons, without ever considering whether or not my character can jump it.  He might have even made the pit based on some other, external factor, such as the passage of a delver.

The GM drawing the pit in 2) immediately tells me all of the information above (and a great deal more besides), and I may be able to make creative use of that information in a way that him simply telling me "you see a pit" doesn't begin to describe.

In short, it goes back to Mearls' point about interface: 2) is a much more efficient way of conveying information about the pit to me.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

John Morrow said:
			
		

> 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.




See, that makes me understand the argument. My priorities are different, so I don't agree with it, but I understand it. I'm happy.

It seems this kind of play emphasizes consistency for two reasons:

- Impartiality, because the game is about overcoming challenges, and to feel that the accomplishment of overcoming them is earned, they should be consistent.

- Plausibility, because we're imagining this invented world, and it should be pre-planned so as to give the feel that it's a living place that would still exist if the PC's weren't there.

Can anybody help me out as to whether those are common objectives that rules-heavy people would want to strive for?

If so, that helps me understand. Those are laudable goals if you prefer them, but they're not a part of the way I play at all.

For instance, there's absolutely no focus on mechanically balanced, objective challenges at all in our games. We have difficulties to overcome, but typically challenges are there for us to force characters to make meaningful choices. (Believe me, it's not just telling stories around a campfire. Characters face adversity, and a player can't just make the story come out how they want to.)

On simulating reality, it's a little more complicated. Plausibility is important. We deal with a lot of exploration of character, so that a poorly thought-out NPC would stick out as badly as a 10'x10' room with a dragon would for other people. But our physical locations are just sets. We still use rules, but we work backward from the difficulty involved to describe the situation. 

I know people think that's hippy-dippy, and not roleplaying, but it works for us. Amusingly enough, I'm considered the "rules-heavy" guy in my game. That's because the co-GM would rather use a system that is a page long, and I'm lobbying to extend it to five pages.


----------



## Akrasia

Psion said:
			
		

> ...
> As near as I can tell, you plucked out one word and chose to take offense at it. Having thorougly read and understood the rest of the paragraph or even sentence that you plucked the one word out of would have enhanced your understanding of what I was actually saying. I _was not_ referring to rules-light gamers in general as a market segment, but in particular, those that have shown up here and railed loudly against 3e (or, thrown snarky zingers around about it), something that has, indeed, been on the rise in the last month or two. ...




My apologies for misunderstanding your original comment.  
(Though I haven't noticed a 'rise' in anti-3e bashers over the past 2 months...)


----------



## Ourph

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> So while we're at it, can we find a better way to avoid these kinds of failures of communication, in a general fashion?




I always give my new players some variation of this speech before we start playing:



			
				ME said:
			
		

> "One of my most important jobs as GM is to describe the game world to you.  I'm going to try my best to do that adequately, but there are always going to be situations where some detail that's important to you doesn't seem important to me and I won't mention it.  The only way to get around that is for you to ask me questions.  ASK LOTS OF QUESTIONS!"
> 
> "One of my main goals during the game is to keep the action moving and to keep the game progressing.  That means I don't want to spend a lot of time adding up numbers or waiting for people to decide what to do.  That DOES NOT mean I want you to feel intimidated about pumping me for information.  It doesn't mean I want you to act before you feel like you are completely informed about what is going on.  Asking questions about what's happening in the game, asking for descriptions, asking for world details....all of those things help me to create a deeper, richer milieu for you and the other players.  All of those things move the game forward.  I do not consider them a waste of time.  If I spend a whole session describing the details of a room to you and the other players, that's fine with me as long as the information you're getting from me has some relevance to what is going on in the game and allows you to make better, more well thought out decisions about your characters' actions.
> 
> "It's important to remember that anything is possible up until the moment the dice hit the table.  Once the dice roll, your ability to search for more information, your ability to increase your chances for success, your ability to choose a different course is gone.  At that point you are committed and have to live with the consequences.  Always, always, always make sure that you've exhausted every possible avenue to increase your chances for success before we start rolling dice."




Sometimes they listen and sometimes not, but it's almost universal that the players who heed that advice have a better time and are more successful than those who don't.


----------



## Akrasia

Ourph said:
			
		

> ... it is (IMO) not a very elegant execution of a rules-lite game and suffers from bouts of rules-heavyness and rules-awkwardness in several places.




I agree with you about that.  Fortunately, though, IME it has been easy to modify those aspects of C&C.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> This has two consequences:
> 
> The GM may have made the pit in 2) "DC _x_" to account for any one of those reasons, without ever considering whether or not my character can jump it.  He might have even made the pit based on some other, external factor, such as the passage of a delver.
> 
> The GM drawing the pit in 2) immediately tells me all of the information above (and a great deal more besides), and I may be able to make creative use of that information in a way that him simply telling me "you see a pit" doesn't begin to describe.
> 
> In short, it goes back to Mearls' point about interface: 2) is a much more efficient way of conveying information about the pit to me.




Great, I'm understanding you. 

Your first consequence deals with the idea that some things in the environment should just exist, and I could see how wanting to simulate a living world would lead one to include things like that. My disconnect was that I couldn't see why on Earth someone would want to include a pit for its own sake, without thought as to the relative challenge it provides. If there's a focus on exploring pre-prepared environments, then it adds immersion to have things that are "just there".

Our group doesn't really use setting-based immersion, but then again we don't do much exploring of dangerous uncharted territory. (Unless you count New Orleans during Mardi Gras.)

I can understand the second consequence in terms of player autonomy. You find "GM draws map, player consults it, determines difficulty" more efficient than "GM describes environment, player asks GM difficulty". I can see that for two reasons: One, the GM was going to draw the map anyway, so it's not considered a separate instance of communication. Two, you can consult the rules and determine several things from the diagram, not just the difficulty. 

I get it, I really do. Thanks!

I'm still curious about how and if these techniques are applied to other situations, such as social interactions. My guess (and please help me out here) is that while a roleplayed persuasion attempt sounds a lot like "Gm describes, player asks (or intuits) difficulty", it's appealing despite a lack of rules because that describe/ask transaction is done through first-person dialog, which serves to provide immersion in much the way a battlemap does for combat. (I know some people don't use social conflict rules at all, in which case this still applies, but the difficulty becomes "how persuasive the IC dialog must be" rather than "how high the roll must be".)


----------



## scadgrad

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> And of course the primary activity of _Castles & Crusades_ fans is to be not Pro-C&C, but anti-3e. In other words, they crop up and throw out their two cents about how the game "should be." ...




I'm certainly not in this thread to "bash 3.X," but rather to suggest that the silliness that Dancey claimed is complete BS. I saw it as standing up for the truth really, rather than letting someone talk out of the side of their...well you know. I think the "job of us C&C types" is to answer questions about the game, dispel spurious comments, and spread interest through word of mouth, nothing more really. I can't imagine that C&C could possibly benefit by a bunch of us hanging out over here on EnWorld of all places, and just blathering on about how "suckified" 3.X is. One system is better for some folks while the other is the superior choice for those other groups.




			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> So the C&C proselytizers show up, screaming about how C&C is "better" than 3e, and even make statements like "rules-heavy games are intended to appeal to children....




I think part of what's being misconstrued here is that the C&C crowd, at least those of us who are active in the society, are for the most part, an older group of grognards. For the record, Scadgrad states that rules-heavy games are for, well, people who like a lot of rules. I really do think that Der_Kluge hit upon this in a recent thread where he speculated that certain personality types might be drawn to one game system over another.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Can't we as gamers just accept that some people prefer "rules-heavier" and that others prefer "rules-lighter" without applying value judgements?...




I would hope so. But at the same time, it's in my nature to suggest C&C to folks who might be looking for a change, just like I honestly tell folks that, you know, maybe C&C isn't for you. Different strokes, but none the less Dancey's "equal time" comments still seems like hogwash to me.




			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> ...Seriously, other than its pseudo-THAC0 skill system and its very elegant saving throw system (which I hope D&D adopts), what does C&C ADD to the d20 experience?




Not sure what problem you have with the SIEGE engine since I think it works surprisingly well, but since you've asked:

The ability to use *ANY D&D* product from *ANY* edition easily, and on the fly
A far simpler rules set
A bridge between D&D 3.X and the incredible amount of material produced for all other editions
A very simple way to teach kids and non-gamers how to play D&D
Combats that don't bog down into Battletech-like drudgery
A game experience that feels more like the D&D that I DMd for 22 years prior to the release of 3.X rather than say, Diablo.
Prep time that is far easier on pressed-for-time DMs
A game that is far easier for the DM to adjudicate when the PCs "go off the map"
A very simple way for D20 players to enjoy the modules of the past without requiring their DM to spend days doing the conversion to 3.X

I could go on and on, but those are just a few off the top of my head.


----------



## Akrasia

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I confess I do not have my book with me at work. I read it last night and the edition bashing was pretty clear. I'll quote the paragraph if I can find it, but I'll come back to this later.




Well I just read it again, and did not detect any 'edition bashing' at all.  There *is* a claim that rules should be 'easy to learn' (take less than 15 minutes), and a statement to avoid 'a glut of rules' (which might 'restrict the flow of the game').  But  there is no reference to the 'current edition' of the game, or even an attribution of 'rules glut' to any other game.


			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> However, the mere fact that Primes lower the target number, _rather than raising the skill roll_ is THAC0-ish.




I *think* I understand your point, but don't get what the big deal is, since there is no mathematical difference between lowering the target number and giving a bonus to the ability.  (Also, I've completely internalized the +6 way of understanding the prime system.)  Most criticisms of THAC0 tend to focus on its awkwardness, and the SIEGE system doesn't strike me as awkward.


			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> FWIW, the THAC0 crack was intended as a friendly jab between us, in an effort to keep this thread light...



Fair enough. 


			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Those are things it DOES by virtue of what it _takes away_ from the Core rules of the game (as presented in the OGL that C&C is published under). I specifically asked what it "added" to the game.




As a 'rules light' version of D&D, the whole point of the game is to 'take away' (albeit in a way that keeps the game playable -- simply taking things out of the SRD will tend to produce a horrible, unplayable game).


			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> That's a subjective value judgement ...




Well, the fact that it C&C cuts down on my prep time and lets me use pre-3e material with little conversion work is pretty 'objective' IMO.


			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Taking out feats is a simplification of the Core Rules. So is removing attacks of opportunity from combat.




Yes, but removing core features like feats and AoOs from the SRD will have all kinds of "unintended consequences" for the game as a whole.  It is *not* an easy thing to do.  TLG has done this work for me, and for that I'm grateful.  (So has Green Ronin with True 20, albeit in a very different way -- and I'm grateful to GR as well, as I very much like True 20 as well.)


			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> C&C, for all its assertions, is 3e stripped of its skill and feat systems, and one of its more complex combat rules (attacks of opportunity). That's it.




Actually the combat system is quite different, as are *many* of the spells.  The power scale is also quite different.  The SIEGE system (including its saving throw system) is very different.  I could go on.  Suffice to say, I think you are grossly overstating things here.


			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> The designers then looked at C&C's classes and realized that _without_ those 3e elements, they were out of whack. So they borrowed the XP progression tables from AD&D and claimed that those somehow brought the classes back into balance. Or more accurately, that even though they were out of balance, the differerent XP progressions somehow "compensated" for that.




I didn't realize that you were part of the rules design and playtest process, John. 

It would be more correct to say that the designers started with pre-3e D&D, and modified it by drawing on the SRD, rather than simply "taking away" things from the SRD.


			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I don't need C&C to play rules light D&D. I can do that without buying it.




IME simply yanking things out of the SRD is *not* as easy as you might think.  Without serious work, you will end up with an unplayable game.  3e is a complex game with many interdependent rules and variables.  

I'm willing to pay money ($20) to TLG to save me that headache -- as well as achieve compatibility with pre-3e products.  (Similarly, I am willing to pay $12 to GR for their True 20 system.)



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I freely admit and give credit to the Trolls for inventive marketing. Wizards of the Coast couldn't make money selling rules-light D&D, which is why they give the rules away for FREE (the SRD).
> 
> I'm amazed (and impressed) that Troll Lord Games can.




Again, I think you're seriously underestimating what a headache it is to remold the SRD into a 'rules light' system.

I also think you are grossly *understating* the differences between 3e and C&C.

And the ad hominem attacks on TLG seem unnecessary.


----------



## scadgrad

John Morrow said:
			
		

> The difference between a lighter system and a heavier system is that the heavier system provides a baseline....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.




Well, I'd certainly hope so. It's there in black and white in the C&C PHB. While tumbling past isn't covered by the rules, the DC certainly is. It's whatever the creature's HD is added to either 12/18 depending on the PC's Prime. Of course the DM/CK can add more levels of difficulty, but you can pretty much do that in any RPG.




			
				John Morrow said:
			
		

> 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.




The game actually has a tighter mechanic than what you seem to think. The examples given for using the SIEGE engine should certainly be enough for anyone who's ever played a RPG at all to pick it up pretty easily.


----------



## Akrasia

mearls said:
			
		

> ...
> I think there's a tremendous element of conspicuous consumption at work here. In an alternate universe where D&D had incredibly simple rules and somehow managed to remain viable, I think we'd see the opposite - rules heavy wielded as a stamp of approval. To a chunk of gamers, there's a suite of positive traits inherently linked to rules light. In many cases, "rules light" simply means "a game I like." It also means, "Not D&D." There's an element of rebellion at work there, like the guy who hates pop music and collects records from obscure, late 70s bands that no one else has heard of....




What a load of patronizing *crap*.   

Believe it or not, some people form their tastes in RPGs completely independent of any "element of rebellion".

Some of us are mature people who "know what we like".  Not everyone who plays RPGs is in middle school.



			
				mearls said:
			
		

> ...
> Half of the act of RPG design is hacking through all the misconceptions, malformed conventional wisdom, and backwards thinking that clogs the "industry's" arteries.
> ...




Please enlighten us, oh sage.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> Great, I'm understanding you.
> 
> Your first consequence deals with the idea that some things in the environment should just exist, and I could see how wanting to simulate a living world would lead one to include things like that. My disconnect was that I couldn't see why on Earth someone would want to include a pit for its own sake, without thought as to the relative challenge it provides. If there's a focus on exploring pre-prepared environments, then it adds immersion to have things that are "just there".




Well, this is mostly a theoretical example.  I really don't use dungeon environments when I GM, and exploration isn't a theme I've often used.  The only man-made (or at least sentient-made) pits a PC in my campaigns is likely to encounter are on a battlefield or outside a fortress.

Let me give you an example of something I'd actually _use_, rather than a pure hypothetical: a fortress assault.

The thing is, I don't care how the PCs, say, get into a fortress.  I make the fortress based on the capabilities of the creatures inside and let the players figure out how to assail it.

If the inhabitants are hobgoblins, their fortress is likely to be well-maintained, well-constructed, and placed in a defensible position.  The walls will be a wooden palisade (because the hobs don't go in for that manual labor stuff required to get lots of stone), but of sturdy wood treated to be as flame resistant as possible, 20 ft. high.  A dry moat surrounds the palisade, 10 ft. wide to prevent easy leaps, and comes within 5 ft. of the walls to keep cavalry from easily crossing.  Cunningly, the hobs have put a second, 5 ft. moat outside that one to keep attackers from getting a running start as they cross.

Offhand, I don't know the DCs for climbing, jumping, talking, burning or bashing into this fortress, and what's more, I would try not to consider them in making it.



			
				SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> Our group doesn't really use setting-based immersion, but then again we don't do much exploring of dangerous uncharted territory. (Unless you count New Orleans during Mardi Gras.)




Neither does mine, actually.



			
				SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> I can understand the second consequence in terms of player autonomy. You find "GM draws map, player consults it, determines difficulty" more efficient than "GM describes environment, player asks GM difficulty". I can see that for two reasons: One, the GM was going to draw the map anyway, so it's not considered a separate instance of communication. Two, you can consult the rules and determine several things from the diagram, not just the difficulty.




Two is more important, because the existence of the map shouldn't be assumed.  IMO, this is a benefit of the map even outside of a tactical combat game, and one of the uses I put a battlemat to in RPGs that don't include tactical movement.

I can see the pit on the map and know that it's _x_ wide, and that gives me a wealth of information beyond what I would ever get from querying the GM.  Visual aids also help most people interact with and remember something, so it's probably better even than the GM just telling the width of the pit.



			
				SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> I get it, I really do. Thanks!




You're welcome.  



			
				SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> I'm still curious about how and if these techniques are applied to other situations, such as social interactions. My guess (and please help me out here) is that while a roleplayed persuasion attempt sounds a lot like "Gm describes, player asks (or intuits) difficulty", it's appealing despite a lack of rules because that describe/ask transaction is done through first-person dialog, which serves to provide immersion in much the way a battlemap does for combat. (I know some people don't use social conflict rules at all, in which case this still applies, but the difficulty becomes "how persuasive the IC dialog must be" rather than "how high the roll must be".)




Social rules, how to adjudicate them, how many (if any) there should be, and what their role in a campaign is, are the biggest headache in RPGdom.  

I have no idea how they should work, even after trying every extreme, from no-rules-pure-dialogue to extensive 'diplomatic combat' houserules with (in 3e terms) their own feats, PrCs and a multitude of modifiers.

Neither satisfied me, nor have I found a happy medium.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Akrasia said:
			
		

> What a load of patronizing *crap*.
> 
> Believe it or not, some people form their tastes in RPGs completely independent of any "element of rebellion".
> 
> Some of us are mature people who "know what we like".  Not everyone who plays RPGs is in middle school.
> 
> Please enlighten us, oh sage.




Well, I'm not the sage in question, but I'll say this: unless you were raised with as much separation as possible from your broader cultural surroundings, you are more than 50 years old, or you didn't grow up in a Western first-world country - the latter pair, at least, are possible, and I'll take back the following comment if it's true - you were raised in a popular culture that glorified rebellion and denigrated authority.

If you were part of "geek" and more specifically "gamer" culture during your formative years, you were also immersed in a subculture that not only often shares both traits but is also generally distrustful of popularity.

"What one likes" is not an in-a-vacuum choice by a perfect rational actor.  It's indelibly linked to one's formative experience and enculturation.

Unless one is me, of course.  

But I digress.    That's not to say that you like rules-lite, or dislike D&D, because of those aspects of your enculturation - or that Mearls was referring to you personally.  Your "some" leaves room for his "chunk of gamers."


----------



## Mythmere1

Wow, when I last left this thread it wasn't a festival of C&C bashing.  Scadgrad, Akrasia, let the Knights of Wrongfun pontificate, and just ignore it.  When you see someone state that changing a game by removing rules is subjective, but adding rules is objective, you've just got someone who's a rules junkie.  He certainly wouldn't enjoy C&C, from what I've read of his posts he doesn't understand the rules, and he's just trolling.

The more you try to respond, the more you fuel the people who are threatened by other rule systems.  If you're going to argue, at least argue with Joshua Dyal or MoogleEmpMog or someone who prefers 3E without feeling threatened enough to sling insults.


----------



## JohnSnow

Akrasia said:
			
		

> What a load of patronizing *crap*.
> 
> Believe it or not, some people form their tastes in RPGs completely independent of any "element of rebellion".
> 
> Some of us are mature people who "know what we like". Not everyone who plays RPGs is in middle school.




Not that Mike needs me to defend him but this one is out of line.

He said there's "an element" of rebellion at work. In some cases, he's right. So, basically, I'd say you agree.

Patronizing is labelling all gamers who like more complex rules as having, how did Ace put it, "less social maturity and dispute resolution skills" and not being able to "handle a more complex social contract." Given that, I think it's fair to say that the patronizing attitude has been flying both ways on this thread.

I'm pleased to see that Moogle and Todd's exchange has proved fruitful. And I retract any derogatory comments about the folks at Troll Lord Games that don't have to do with them calling my preferred style of game "immature," "boring," "dull," or "in conflict with the basic idea of the game." Just because they can't incorporate the rules and play an immersive game doesn't mean there's anything inherently wrong with those rules.

My two cents.

EDIT: and better and more succinctly put by Moogle while I was writing this..


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Mythmere1 said:
			
		

> Wow, when I last left this thread it wasn't a festival of C&C bashing.  Scadgrad, Akrasia, let the Knights of Wrongfun pontificate, and just ignore it.  When you see someone state that changing a game by removing rules is subjective, but adding rules is objective, you've just got someone who's a rules junkie.  He certainly wouldn't enjoy C&C, from what I've read of his posts he doesn't understand the rules, and he's just trolling.
> 
> The more you try to respond, the more you fuel the people who are threatened by other rule systems.  If you're going to argue, at least argue with Joshua Dyal or MoogleEmpMog or someone who prefers 3E without feeling threatened enough to sling insults.




JD and I don't get to be Knights of Wrongfun?  

'Cause that sounds like a seriously kick-arse Prestige Class, or maybe a feat chain, and I know how much Every Single Person In The World likes feats and PrCs, except neener-heads.


----------



## Akrasia

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Well, I'm not the sage in question, but I'll say this: unless you were raised with as much separation as possible from your broader cultural surroundings, you are more than 50 years old, or you didn't grow up in a Western first-world country - the latter pair, at least, are possible, and I'll take back the following comment if it's true - you were raised in a popular culture that glorified rebellion and denigrated authority.
> 
> If you were part of "geek" and more specifically "gamer" culture during your formative years, you were also immersed in a subculture that not only often shares both traits but is also generally distrustful of popularity.
> 
> "What one likes" is not an in-a-vacuum choice by a perfect rational actor.  It's indelibly linked to one's formative experience and enculturation.




Yeah, whatever.  

Armchair pop psychology and sociology is pretty uninteresting IMO.  

My own tastes in RPGs have nothing to do with "sticking it to the Man", and I dislike knee-jerk "rebellion" more generally.


----------



## Mythmere1

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> JD and I don't get to be Knights of Wrongfun?
> 
> 'Cause that sounds like a seriously kick-arse Prestige Class, or maybe a feat chain, and I know how much Every Single Person In The World likes feats and PrCs, except neener-heads.




  There you go!  You can now join the ranks of the Knights of Wrongfun and wield a +2 sword of superiority!


----------



## Mythmere1

Mythmere1 said:
			
		

> There you go!  You can now join the ranks of the Knights of Wrongfun and wield a +2 sword of superiority!




I think it's a prestige class, but it would be fun to figure out the feat chain...


----------



## Psion

Mythmere1 said:
			
		

> Scadgrad, Akrasia, let the Knights of Wrongfun pontificate, and just ignore it.




He says, invoking a pejorative...



> The more you try to respond, the more you fuel the people who are threatened by other rule systems.  If you're going to argue, at least argue with Joshua Dyal or MoogleEmpMog or someone who prefers 3E without feeling threatened enough to sling insults.




As long as you are playing armchair psychologist, enlighten me: if arguing is about systems I "feel threatened by", why am I not feeling more threatened by a game like Exalted which _has_ actually attracted players I know in meatspace, and engaging in the said supposed bashing you refer to?


----------



## Psion

Akrasia said:
			
		

> My apologies for misunderstanding your original comment.




My tip of the hat to you for sticking with me while, it occurs to me, that in my frustration, my prior post might have come off a bit abbrasive.


----------



## Remathilis

I think that (IMHO) I'm not afraid of my DM, but I want something to use as a REFERENCE for my decision. 

In D&D, a 10' pit is DC 10, barring invisible walls. Why? Its 5' per 5 DC. I know that the fall does 2d6 damage (10' deep). I know I can make 15 ref save if I do roll less. I can look at my jump check and decide IF I want to chance it, all without the DM telling me these things, which SPEEDS UP game for me. I can know all this from "Its a 10 wide, 10 deep pit". 

In C&C* a 10' pit is TN 15 Str. Why? Thats what the DM says. How much damage will I take if I fail? DM decides that. (uh 2d6). Can I make it? Depends on if Str in prime and my level. If its not prime, I really can't do anything to help make me a better jumper other than level up. 

As a player, I'd rather know WHAT I can do on a regular basis (jump 10' pits) and make descisions based on the excepted rules.

As a DM, I'd like a guide to know HOW to set this DC/TN and what the failure for missing is without making a random number up. 

Does this make me a bad GM. Possibly. I'd rather save my ad-hoc rules for things like what happens when a PC tries to absorb an conduit to the Negative Energy Plane with a Staff of Power rather than coming up with every pits TN. Theres a Chart I can look at for that.

Of course, I like packaged campaign settings and modules too, allows me more time to play.

HUGE FOOTNOTE: I've never played C&C. There MIGHT be a rule for pit TNs and falling damage, but I do not know it. Therefore, the example is more important than the numbers: I'd rather had a set number known to all players and myself than to come up with something willy-nilly based on what I "feel" is right. (which might not feel right to my players).


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Yeah, whatever.
> 
> Armchair pop psychology and sociology is pretty uninteresting IMO.
> 
> My own tastes in RPGs have nothing to do with "sticking it to the Man", and I dislike knee-jerk "rebellion" more generally.




I dislike knee-jerk (and, indeed, almost any) "rebellion" myself, so I can understand that.

I do note, however, that you left off the part of my post where I noted that your gaming preferences might not be due to any such thing.

And, for that matter, the part directly addressing your prior post.

Ah, well.

Now that I've qualified for Knight of Wrongfun, I'll just smack you with my +2 Sword of Superiority and call it a day.


----------



## Mythmere1

Psion said:
			
		

> He says, invoking a pejorative...



Yes, I think people who bash on other systems deserve it - if I were bashing on D&D, you'd have a valid point.   




> As long as you are playing armchair psychologist, enlighten me: if arguing is about systems I "feel threatened by", why am I not feeling more threatened by a game like Exalted which _has_ actually attracted players I know in meatspace, and engaging in the said supposed bashing you refer to?




I don't know.  Are you bashing on C&C?  The posts I saw from you were along the lines of "some people prefer rules-lite, some people don't, and there's not an objective answer," which is basically the same position I take.  Out of the two games, I prefer C&C, but I can completely understand when people prefer 3e.  It's just about whether people prefer GM adjudication or referencing a comprehensive rule-set.  There are advantages to both sides.  Also, I'm kind of an old-schooler, so there are aesthetic issues and things like that which just jibe better with C&C on a subjective level for me.


----------



## Silverleaf

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> But I digress.    That's not to say that you like rules-lite, or dislike D&D, because of those aspects of your enculturation - or that Mearls was referring to you personally.  Your "some" leaves room for his "chunk of gamers."




Some people who like 3e are rapists.  Some people who like 3e are child molesters.  Some people who like 3e are murderers.  I'll stop now, but I think the point is fairly evident.  If not, then I'll spell it out:  judging an entire group by some unknown subset of that group is a really, really stupid idea.
In fact this kind of bogus association is exactly what sparked this humongous thread to begin with.  In other words, some people don't know when to quit BS'ing...


----------



## Remathilis

_I want a sword...._


----------



## Akrasia

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Not that Mike needs me to defend him but this one is out of line.




Why is it "out of line"?  He's making a set of sweeping, patronizing generalizations about people who are attached to 'rules light' games.


			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> He said there's "an element" of rebellion at work. In some cases, he's right.




The generalization is either meaningless (yes, I'm sure that *somewhere* there are people who are anti-3e, or whatever, because of some immature 'rebellious' motive), or it is insulting (if he is actually trying to put forward an empirically meaningful *explanation* for why people are attached to rules light systems).



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Patronizing is labelling all gamers who like more complex rules as having, how did Ace put it, "less social maturity and dispute resolution skills" and not being able to "handle a more complex social contract." Given that, I think it's fair to say that the patronizing attitude has been flying both ways on this thread.





Well I am not going to speak on behalf of Ace (aside from noting that Mearls is now part of WotC, whereas Ace is, AFAIK, a private gamer expressing his view).  

I will say that mature gamers can like either rules light or rules heavy games.  However, I think mature and experienced gamers are more likely to be *able* to enjoy rules light games -- simply because it takes experience and trust to make such games work.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> And I retract any derogatory comments about the folks at Troll Lord Games that don't have to do with them calling my preferred style of game "immature," "boring," "dull," or "in conflict with the basic idea of the game."




Ummm ... what?  TLG has *never* expressed the views you are attributing to them.  Don't confuse opinions expressed by some of their fans with the views of the company itself.


----------



## Mythmere1

Remathilis said:
			
		

> _I want a sword...._




Not for your post.  Too fair.       You have to say that people who play C&C are playing the game wrong before you get the prestige class and the sword.   Or pick any game, really.  Rifts is a popular avenue to the Citadel of the Knights of Wrongfun.  (That's how I got my wrongfun sword - Rifts.  I couldn't help myself).


----------



## Remathilis

Mythmere1 said:
			
		

> Out of the two games, I prefer C&C, but I can completely understand when people prefer 3e.  It's just about whether people prefer GM adjudication or referencing a comprehensive rule-set.  There are advantages to both sides.




And thats the lesson for today kids.


----------



## Remathilis

Mythmere1 said:
			
		

> Not for your post.  Too fair.       You have to say that people who play C&C are playing the game wrong before you get the prestige class and the sword.   Or pick any game, really.  Rifts is a popular avenue to the Citadel of the Knights of Wrongfun.  (That's how I got my wrongfun sword - Rifts.  I couldn't help myself).




Rifts, not THATS wrongfun I can get behind. I'd rather sit at home doing nothing than play a session of Rifts with my friends. (and I DID for about a month)

_*Now * do I get my sword?_


----------



## Mythmere1

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Rifts, not THATS wrongfun I can get behind. I'd rather sit at home doing nothing than play a session of Rifts with my friends. (and I DID for about a month)
> 
> _*Now * do I get my sword?_




"Rather do nothing than play" is good for a +3 sword of superiority.
You've got to get up to the "poke in te eye with a sharp stick" region for a +4  vorpal sword of superiority, though.  Nevertheless, you are hereby knighted into the Order of the Knights of Wrongfun, and recieve your sword!  May your sneer never falter and your pen never run free of poison!


----------



## Psion

Mythmere1 said:
			
		

> I don't know.  Are you bashing on C&C?




I don't know. Am I? I wasn't one of the exceptional non-bashers you pointed to in your post.

Sometimes when you fail to name a target, everyone feels like a target. (shrug).



> The posts I saw from you were along the lines of "some people prefer rules-lite, some people don't, and there's not an objective answer," which is basically the same position I take.




Well then you are cool by me.


----------



## Campbell

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I will say that mature gamers can like either rules light or rules heavy games. However, I think mature and experienced gamers are more likely to be *able* to enjoy rules light games -- simply because it takes experience and trust to make such games work.



That's a statement I can get behind, although I believe the same could be said for a setting focused play experience, rather than an entirely gamist one. Of course, I admit I am somewhat of a setting focused snob.

I apologize if my remarks down thread were rather abrasive.


----------



## Mythmere1

Psion said:
			
		

> I don't know. Am I? I wasn't one of the exceptional non-bashers you pointed to in your post.
> 
> Sometimes when you fail to name a target, everyone feels like a target. (shrug).




True about everyone feeling like a target.  I mentioned JD and MoogleEmpMog because they frequently take the 3e side in debates about C&C on the OGL boards, so they're particularly familiar as the ones who don't make ad hominem attacks and are relatively objective.

I think most people aren't Knights of Wrongfun, but the wrongfun crowd is vocal.  Sort of the same thing people say about us C&C fans - few but vocal.   

When two games are as similar as D&D and C&C, many innocently meant statements of preference sound like insults, too.  You can't mention C&C on a general board without attracting an instant war.


----------



## Mallus

John Morrow said:
			
		

> 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.



While that's true, consider that every NPC in the game chooses to act, essentially, by GM fiat. So that leaves a huge portion of the game in a kind of mechanics-free space that relies on a GM's judgement, rather than on any codified system of task resolution (and on an open line of communication between players and GM).

To varying degrees the rules system can describe what a GM _can_ do with NPC's (or any form of obstacle/encounter), but not _what_ they do. And in that there's no escaping a reliance on the GM's subjective judgement calls.

In light of that, quibbling about an extra +2 circumstance bonus applied to a Jump check seems, well, to miss the point.


> In fact, I think the GM subjectively assessing the players' plans can create quite a few very real problems.



I'm not trying to be difficult, but can you suggest another way for GM's to assess things, other then subjectively? I'm not a robot or an algorithm. While I try for a degree of objectivity, I have to be honest with myself and admit I fall pretty short. I'm only human.


> All of these problems are caused by the GMs subjective assessment of the challenge being based on things other than the setting and situation.



I don't accept that. Most of what you list aren't problems (level-appropriate challenges?? rewards for creativity?!) unless taken to an extreme. And even a GM who limits their assessment to 'the setting and the situation' are making subjective judgements. How can they not be? How did they obtain an objective frame of reference?


----------



## Psion

Good lord, where's the _hate_ people!?

What's all this... _apologizing_?


----------



## Akrasia

Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> I apologize if my remarks down thread were rather abrasive.




No worries.


----------



## Akrasia

Psion said:
			
		

> Good lord, where's the _hate_ people!?
> 
> What's all this... _apologizing_?




I am sure that some hate will break out again soon ...


----------



## Mythmere1

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I am sure that some hate will break out again soon ...





Castles & Crusades is a fun game and I enjoy playing it...  


Where the heck is my sig line, btw...
Oh, there it is.  That was weird.


----------



## woodelf

buzz said:
			
		

> From Mike Mearls' blog:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ryan Dancey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _I observed (2-way mirror) several groups who were given "rules lite" RPG systems as a part of an effort to understand how they were used and if the "liteness" was actually delivering any utility value. Using a stopwatch, we found that consistently zero time was saved in character creation, or adjudicating disputes. In fact, in some games, disputes lasted substantially longer because the GM could not just point to a written rule in a book and call the argument closed.
> 
> 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._
Click to expand...



First, a nit-pick: wouldn't it be a one-way mirror? I keep seeing references to "two-way mirrors" in various places, but how are you going to secretly observe someone through a mirror that is reflective on both sides? Surely they (and Ryan in this case) are referring to a mirror that is reflective on one side, and able to be seen through from the other side, or, IOW, a one-way mirror?

OK, now on to the substance of the claim:
Who was the test group? People experienced with crunchy RPGs? Regular gamers of some sort? Miss Marple fanfic writers? I would not be one bit surprised to discover that those who're used to GURPS or D&D3E or Hero are, in essence, reliant on the rules to resolve disputes. And that those same groups, especially initially, feel like the rules aren't supporting them when first introduced to, say, Over the Edge or Everway or Risus. World-class professional classical musicians often can't do jazz worth a damn at first, if they have no background in improvisation. But, then again, world-class jazz musicians might not be able to just pick up sheet music and sightread it. Doesn't mean either skill is better or worse, or easier or harder, than the other.

My anecdotal experience? Those who're experienced RPers, and only used to crunchy systems, often flounder, or argue, or fail to have fun with a rules-lite game. But not always--for some, it's an epiphany, and they either find something they didn't even know they were missing, or decide they like both styles of play for different reasons. 

Heck, even for me, one of the most anti-crunch people i know (i consider Everway and OtE to be about my ceiling for crunch, generally), both styles of play appeal. [Well, really, i'd say "all styles", since i think this is a false dichotomy that both glosses over the spectrum on this scale, and sets up a false opposition which ignores the many other styles of play that are equally "opposite" to both of them.] Generally, anything crunchier than Over the Edge is too much for me. Except when it isn't.  Then i want Hero, or Spycraft, or something like that.

But, with those with no prior experience with RPGs, the reaction to rules-lite games seems to depend on personality, with some definite gender and age trends in evidence. IME (dozens, if not hundreds, of beginners over the years; some friends, most at conventions), college-age+ beginners do better with rules-lite while younger gamers do better with more mechanical structure; women more often find crunchy games to have more detail than they're interested in mastering, while men more often seem to need mechanical detail as a crutch for their creativity; men more often start from the game stats when creating a character, and then see what develops, while women more often have a character concept in mind and then figure out how to get that with the game mechanics. Keep in mind, none of those are absolute statements--just trends i've observed. With numerous exceptions: the 2nd-most hack-n-slash/powergamer RPer i've ever known is female; several of the best rules-heads i know are female; probably the most anti-mechanics RPer i know is male; we've had a couple of first-time RPers in the 10-and-under category that had no problem knowing what to do with minimal rules support; i've known at least one person who first RPed in their late 20s, and didn't really "get it" until we used a crunchier system.

Oh, and i have _never_ seen anything crunchy (and anything from Storyteller on up is "crunchy") run as fast as one of our sessions of Dread, or a game of OtE or QAGS or something equally lite. Not saying it can't be done, just that i've seen no evidence of it.


----------



## Mythmere1

woodelf said:
			
		

> First, a nit-pick: wouldn't it be a one-way mirror? I keep seeing references to "two-way mirrors" in various places, but how are you going to secretly observe someone through a mirror that is reflective on both sides? Surely they (and Ryan in this case) are referring to a mirror that is reflective on one side, and able to be seen through from the other side, or, IOW, a one-way mirror?




An excellent point.  You may have explained the odd results of the experiment.  Mr. Dancey thought he was watching gamers, but saw only himself ...


----------



## Henry

Boy, leave a place for a few days, and City calls in a wrecking crew... 

Having recently played several games of C&C as a light-prep alternative to NO gaming due to lack of prepared DM's and low player turnout, I have to call foul on the _apparent_ statements in Ryan Dancey's quote. Prep-time dramatically decreased and play-time dramatically increased for C&C over our usual D&D games; We finished around 40% of the Caves of Chaos in B2 PLUS got through a meaningful bit of roleplaying in the Keep, where they established relationships and a base of operations in only THREE sessions, as opposed to similar activities taking anywhere from 4 to 6 sessions in a 3E game. The biggest differences were in number of players playing (4 versus 6 players), and in combats (combats in the C&C games involved far larger numbers of opponents than in a similar 3e game session), and in DM adjudications (actions taking less time for me to adjudicate in C&C versus 3E); any of these could have had an effect, but the general experience was one of increased resolution speed and a feeling of "getting more adventuring done."

YET...

...Our favorite system is still 3E and d20-based games. The amount of customization and feeling of ownership of characters by the players is worth the additional prep time, when circumstances permit. If I want to play something quickly on the fly, C&C is the game I'd pick (especially with my handy 5-page cheat sheets I've now created). If we have our usual 5 to 6 hours a session and 5 or 6 players, however, 3E or d20-based game is our preferred game.




			
				woodelf said:
			
		

> First, a nit-pick: wouldn't it be a one-way mirror?




Actually, he may well mean a two-way -- as in, he was the one speaking to the groups doing the test. In a one-way, the groups don't know they're being tested, or they are deceptively being told they're being tested for something else. In two-way, they know more or less what they are being tested for.



> I would not be one bit surprised to discover that those who're used to GURPS or D&D3E or Hero are, in essence, reliant on the rules to resolve disputes. And that those same groups, especially initially, feel like the rules aren't supporting them when first introduced to, say, Over the Edge or Everway or Risus.




I can agree with this, strictly because what you are familar with is quicker to you than what is unfamiliar. In fact, it's one of the main principles behind OGL and d20 -- less time familiarizing yourself with totally new rules is more time spent getting into the game.



> Oh, and i have _never_ seen anything crunchy (and anything from Storyteller on up is "crunchy") run as fast as one of our sessions of Dread, or a game of OtE or QAGS or something equally lite. Not saying it can't be done, just that i've seen no evidence of it.




Oh, I've seen it for sure -- but it involved a group VERY familiar with said rules. In a group where all members are familiar with the rules and on the same page mechanically and dramatically, even Synnibarr could roll like an Earnhardt Stock Car. But it's a lot rarer because it requires comfort with the rules -- the more rules that come in in the middle of play, the more likelihood of referencing unfamiliar rules.


----------



## JohnSnow

Sorry...no hate. I totally agree with both this statement:



			
				Mythmere1 said:
			
		

> Out of the two games, I prefer C&C, but I can completely understand when people prefer 3e. It's just about whether people prefer GM adjudication or referencing a comprehensive rule-set. There are advantages to both sides.




Except for the part about preferring C&C, of course. I prefer 3e, but I can completely understand when people prefer C&C.

I also think this one is quite accurate.



			
				Akrasia said:
			
		

> I will say that mature gamers can like either rules light or rules heavy games. However, I think mature and experienced gamers are more likely to be *able* to enjoy rules light games -- simply because it takes experience and trust to make such games work.




As Akrasia says, more mature players are more likely to have the tools to enjoy a rule-light game. However, I happen to believe that mature players who know the rules backwards and forwards can easily play a rules-heavy game with the same degree of facility.

It's odd that it's almost paradoxical. Fewer rules ought to make a game easier to learn, but the reverse actually seems to be true. It seems that only players who develop a certain degree of experience and familiarity with RPGs can play and truly enjoy a rules-light game. That's an interesting observation, and one that needs to be addressed (and, to be honest, fixed) if RPgaming is going to continue growing as a hobby.

Personally, I think Mearls was making a general observation, not a blanket statement meant to apply to all gamers, hence the caveats like "seems to be" "an element of" and so forth. And the fact that he now works for Wizards doesn't mean he loses the right to have and express his own opinions, irregardless of what company he works for.

He was right to a degree, the RPG community needs to stop trying to eat its young. We'll scare all the new gamers off.

And finally:

I apologize for mischaracterizing the good gentlemen at Troll Lord Games. I do find their introduction patronizing and a bit preachy. The introduction, while not nearly as directly pejorative as I recalled, is incredibly "superior." I'll do a partial quote by way of making my point.



> Capturing a mood is difficult. It is a challenge to create the intricate interplay between a bartender who is bought and paid for by a thieves guild and a character seeking to pry information from him. The task involves descriptive text, acting, accents, and a great number of things...The tale in the game must cascade over the players, engulfing them in a wash of emotions: fear, rage, courage, elation. Once you've captured everyone's emotions, the game is won! At that point, the game is pure fun, like a good movie - one where you forget you're in a theater.
> 
> The core of any game's philosophy has to have the goal of creating and capturing a mood charged with excitement. Anything that detracts from that objective detracts from the game. How does one capture that mood? Foremost, the rules guiding game play must be easily understood. Ideally, the basic rules of the game should be easily grasped within about fifteen minutes...As a foundation, the rules must be kept simple and logical, easy to comprehend and easy to enact. Expanding the game comes later, much like adding stories to a building. Start with a firm, square foundation and everything else follows.
> 
> The game must be adaptable as well. Gamers are diverse people. They all want to play a game that suits their tastes. Those playing should be able to add, discard, and change rules and ideas to fit their needs without worrying about the effects those changes have on the workings of the rest of the game. There should be only a few hard and fast rules. Everything else is extra.
> 
> The main impediment to these objectives is an overabundance of rules. A glut of rules unnecessarily restricts the flow of the story, and even worse, the flow of the game. Rules do serve a purpose. The codify actions during game play. However, rules can also impede the imagination. They can reduce the element of uncertainty and the emotions that come with it. They can describe too much, and thus hinder the capacity for narrative development for all participants. At its worst, codifying too much into game rules reduces emotion and mood. This misses the goal of capturing the emotions of the participants, and then, you've lost the heart of the game! An efficient and concise set of rules allows an ease of play and adaptability, and is a necessary ingredient.
> 
> A rules-light, adaptable game naturally engenders a gaming environment where one is bound only by imagination. When so unleashed, one can act without restraint to create a gaming environment that is fun for all. That is the core of this game's philosophy. That was the core of the original game. At its heart, it was intended to be a fun game to play and this game adheres to the same philosophy. Castles and Crusades is not a realistic-simulation game! Castles & Crusades is a fantasy game where imagination rules!




There's a whole lot of subjective opinion stated as absolute fact there. What the game "must" be. Many of the statements are accurate, but the clear intention of the designers is that they feel that the "descendant" of the "original game" they mention does NOT adhere to the same philosophy.

However, they do say a few things I agree with. Gamers should be able to play the game that suits their tastes. Couldn't have said it better myself. I guess I can just tolerate more rules before feeling that they "hinder the capacity for narrative development" than can the gentlemen at Troll Lord Games In fact, I think that some of those rules ADD to the narrative development, rather than detract from it.

As the Trolls say, gamers are diverse people. And I don't need them telling me how my game "should" or "must" be played. That second to the last paragraph is opinion stated as fact. Bully for them. I disagree and find their attitude patronizing.

That said, I do agree with a fair number of their broad and sweeping statements about how the game should be fun, easy to understand, and easy to play.


----------



## Driddle

Most of you are wrong.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

I won't hate on C&C's players or the game itself or even the authors of the offending work. Mythmere nailed it, aside from his prefernce for Wrong Fun.

That said, I loath the C&C style introduction to an RPG (or any other) book.  

I'd skipped it while perusing the system before; wish I'd never seen it.  Similarly patronizing and snooty comments soured me on Storyteller, a system that I suspect I'd actually like if I could get past such elements or see it applied to a genre I like.


----------



## Akrasia

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> ... Personally, I think Mearls was making a general observation, not a blanket statement meant to apply to all gamers, hence the caveats like "seems to be" "an element of" and so forth. And the fact that he now works for Wizards doesn't mean he loses the right to have and express his own opinions, irregardless of what company he works for.
> ...




The fact that Mearls now works for WotC suggests that he has an invested interest in dismissing 'rules light' systems.  Sure he has a right to express his views -- but if he is going to make broad claims without backing them, he should expect to be called on it.

I have to say that my response to Mearls' "sociological/psychological theory" concerning RPG players who like rules light systems is, to some extent, motivated by some of the things he has been saying about non-WotC gaming companies in his blog.

Essentially, Mearls has been claiming that ALL non-WotC gaming companies are in a "downward spiral", that (with "one exception" that he never names) NO d20 companies "understand" how to write for d20, that only 2-3 d20 designers can write competently for d20, and so forth -- ALL in an incredibly vague manner, and without providing ANY support for any of his claims.

If you're interested, I started a thread on this over at RPGnet a couple of days ago:
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=203833

Does Mearls have access to some kind of sociological data to justify his claim that "rebellion" is a significant factor (i.e. a statistically meaningful one) that contributes to anti-3e sentiment?    If not, it is no more meaningful than my assertion that beer consumption contributes to anti-3e sentiment (since, gosh, I drink beer, and I know many beer drinkers, and a lot of them don't like 3e).

Similarly, does Mearls have access to the profit statements for White Wolf, Black Industries, Eden Studios, Steve Jackson Games, Mongoose, Green Ronin, etc., in order to back up his claim that they are in "downward spirals"?  I doubt it.

In short, this guy has been throwing around a lot of generalizations lately-- WITHOUT backing them up.

I'm not impressed.


----------



## Akrasia

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> ...
> There's a whole lot of subjective opinion stated as absolute fact there. What the game "must" be. Many of the statements are accurate, but the clear intention of the designers is that they feel that the "descendant" of the "original game" they mention does NOT adhere to the same philosophy.  ....




Well, keep in mind that it is an introduction for a book that people most likely have already purchased -- it is not an advertisement, or an essay on role-playing.  Rather, it is a "mission statement" -- i.e. an explanation of what the game is trying to accomplish.

Also, I didn't see ANY reference to the "descendent" of the "original game" mentioned in the passage you quoted.


----------



## Mythmere1

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> It's odd that it's almost paradoxical. Fewer rules ought to make a game easier to learn, but the reverse actually seems to be true. It seems that only players who develop a certain degree of experience and familiarity with RPGs can play and truly enjoy a rules-light game. That's an interesting observation, and one that needs to be addressed (and, to be honest, fixed) if RPgaming is going to continue growing as a hobby.




This is interesting - I think there might be one extra refinement to the thought, though, looking back on my early gaming years.  Might it be that (for a brand-new gamer learning cold) that it's easier to start *playing* a rules-lighter game (here I mean one like C&C or Savage Worlds), but playing it - not too artfully.  It's a bit harder to learn a heavier-rules game like 3e, but a brand-new gamer has more guidance and thus is a little more likely to be playing it - more artfully.  As gamers mature and get a better sense of other rules systems, other modes of play, etc., they begin to develop a preference for either rules-heavy or rules-lite once they've got a more personal style?  

Also, I think rules-heavy, since it contains "by the book" answers, is going to cause less stress in groups of younger players with hotter tempers.

I'm teaching my boys Castles & Crusades: simpler rules are better, since one's mildly autistic and the other is eight; the 3E rules are more than they can handle, but they can absorb what's needed for C&C and play like veterans (except for standing up to show exactly how that natural twenty sword thrust went in - actually, I've seen thirty-five year olds do that too - never mind).  It's definitely been easier to teach.  Left to themselves, though, I think tempers would flare more easily than with a nice big rulebook full of answers.  When they're in college, I expect my autistic son to prefer 3e - he likes ANSWERS and hates ambiguity.  My eight year old, on the other hand, is already showing a strong tendency to view the RPG as more of an interactive story than a game.  He might follow his old man's lead and play C&C.

So, I think you're onto something about the learning curves not being exactly what you'd expect (although I think the rules lite games are easier to learn than rules heavy).


----------



## JohnSnow

Interesting analysis Mythmere.

I actually will just comment that I basically transitioned from rules-light to rules-heavy _right alongside the D&D game._ As I grew up, basically the game grew up with me. There are a few things about its current incarnation that I'm not overly enamored of, but I don't think they merit throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Especially because, as I said earlier, C&C fixes some of what I see as "minor issues" with D&D while leaving glaring ones (like the magic and magic item systems) utterly and totally untouched.

I can play a rules-light game like C&C with a certain amount of enjoyment. After a time, I find myself missing the complexity and customization available in 3e. What can I say? I like feats. I like skills, although I think they could stand to be simplified. But I don't think they should be made LESS important to the game, which it seems to me is what C&C does. Anyway, I digress and don't want to rehash my issues with C&C.

The learning curve is a big deal. Obviously, an advanced gamer can teach a newbie a rules-light game relatively quickly. The issue (to me) is how quickly a new wannabe-GM can learn the game well enough to run it for his friends. It's odd to me that the rules-light game doesn't make that learning curve any faster; if anything, it slows the process down. Not everyone who plays D&D was introduced to it by playing in someone else's game. Some people learned it on their own through trial and error. IMO, anything that assists the new DM with that learning curve is a step in the right direction for the hobby as a whole (I think DMG 2 is such a product). And anything that goes against making the game more accessible to new gamers is a step backwards. Personally, I'd love to hear people's suggestions for dealing with this.

As to Akrasia's comments, I'll let Mike Mearls speak for himself, if he so chooses. Mike's obviously guilty of some hyperbole, but who isn't? And besides, it's his blog, so he can make sweeping generalizations on his opinions about gaming if he wants to.

For what it's worth, I think there's something to his assessment that most d20 publishers don't really "get" d20. As a result, they tinker around making new prestige classes, base classes, and/or feats that don't really add anything to the game. Much more creative things can actually be done with the OGL and d20, as C&C, for one, proved. Just creating new prestige classes, weapons, spells, and so forth is, to be honest, a pretty lame effort that adds very little to the game or the hobby. By contrast, I'd say making d20 setting material is smart, as is making classes and Prestige Classes to support your setting - if you can do them right. Publishing adventures is again smart - if you can make money  ton them. Making gaming aids (like Fiery Dragon's Battle Boxes) is another good idea, if you can come up with one that enhances people's gaming experience. Toolkits of well-thought-out added rules (books like _Unearthed Arcana_) are another good idea that probably adds to the game. Those are all some pretty big IFs...but that's probably why not everyone succeeds.

The foregoing paragraph is obviously my opinion, not that of Mike Mearls, who I don't really know other than through his posts and blog entries. I just happen to think he may be on to something.


----------



## RFisher

buzz said:
			
		

> I'm not saying they can't. I'm saying that I can see a disconnect when playing a "lite" RPG that takes these factors into account by relying mostly on GM fiat. When you point to real-world justifications, it emphasizes that you're really just playing "Mother, may I". The GM is suddenly deciding how strong a PC is, or how a slick surface would affect their footing, whether it's reasonable that the character could make the jump, etc. I.e., you're in territory where players could potentially be pulling out their sports almanacs and Guiness' Book of Records to prove what could or couldn't be done.



Well, at my table, it's more about consensus. Sure, the DM has the final say, but he's not going to discount the opinion of the players. Heck, I have to rely on the players because they certainly know more about many topics than I do. Collectively the group can usually come up with at least as good of a simulated result as any set of playable pen & paper rules.

But, yeah, I see what you're saying. The real saving grace is that our results only have to be good enough to satisfy ourselves. The players don't have to pull out the Guiness book not only because the DM trusts their recommendations, but also because they'd rather use a good-enough result based on the group's knowledge than look it up & argue.

And it is true that I go for more of a balance between gamist, narratavist, & simulationist these days. It's neither which is more realistic or which is better drama. It's a bit of both.


----------



## RFisher

Silverleaf said:
			
		

> I have, because it's how we started gaming in the early 80's.  There was nobody experienced to serve as a teacher.



My own experience is that I learned from the D&D Basic Set, but I don't think I learned as well as I could have. Even though I understood a lot of things even then--like why armor modifying the "to hit" isn't really any different than armor modifying the damage roll--I've learned an awful lot about the old game in the past year or three that have greatly increased my appreciation of it. While there may be no wrong way to play, I feel that much of how I played classic D&D & OAD&D in the past was wrong for me.

But like I said earlier, I don't know that the game's fault was that it didn't have enough rules so much as that it didn't explain certain things to me thoroughly enough. e.g. It always said "hide in shadows", "move silently", & "climb sheer surfaces"; but I never realized that those were literal special cases & not simply artistic hyperbole. I read them as simple "hide", "sneak", & "climb".

With a mentor, almost any game is a good introductory game. Without a mentor, very few are.


----------



## RFisher

painandgreed said:
			
		

> Speaking of "rules lite", does anybody else remember Dinky Dungeons? Little xeroxed book with rules involving three stats that all came in a little 3"X5" bag with some little dice. All for $1. That's what I think of when I hear "rules lite'.



I don't remember it, but I've read about it. Another one of those out-of-print titles that I'd prefer to find than just about anything being printed today.


----------



## Akrasia

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> ... As to Akrasia's comments, I'll let Mike Mearls speak for himself, if he so chooses. Mike's obviously guilty of some hyperbole, but who isn't? And besides, it's his blog, so he can make sweeping generalizations on his opinions about gaming if he wants to. ...




Sure, he can make sweeping, unsupported generalizations if he wants.  But given that he is reasonably well known in the RPG community, and works for WotC, he should not be suprised when people get annoyed with his refusal to clarify and support his claims (claims that, btw, are generally favourable to WotC, and quite bleak regarding all other companies).

Analogously, if I, as an employee of Stanford University, started making gross , unsupported generalizations about other universities and departments on my blog, I think that people would be well justified in being annoyed with me, and accusing me of being irresponsible.  (Of course, I am a nobody right now, so any such claims by me would be completely unnoticed; but, as I stated above, Mearls is well known in the RPG community.)



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> The foregoing paragraph is obviously my opinion, not that of Mike Mearls, who I don't really know other than through his posts and blog entries. I just happen to think he may be on to something.




He is 'on to something' if his point is that 95 percent of stuff produced for 3e (or RPGs in general) is crap -- including stuff by WotC IMO.  But that is hardly news.

What is annoying is his claim -- vague and unsupported -- about non-WotC companies (both d20 and non-d20).  It looks like a crass dig at the competition, one that is lent the air of credibility by his reputation as a solid game designer.

Interestingly, at least one non-WotC company representative -- John Nephew, president of Atlas Games -- commented at Mearls' blog to point out that Mearls was plain wrong, at least with respect to his company (viz. Ars Magica 5th edition is doing very well, and outperforming the company's d20 material by a significant margin).  See the end of the comments here: http://www.livejournal.com/users/mearls/105311.html.  I can only imagine that what is true for Atlas is also true for a few other non-WotC companies -- and thus Mearls' generalizations are rubbish.

Anyway, I've rambled on about this long enough.  My apologies.  I hope all is well back in Emeryville.


----------



## Akrasia

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> ... After a time, I find myself missing the complexity and customization available in 3e. What can I say? I like feats. I like skills ...




I don't think 'customization' requires a 'complexity'.  It is worth mentioning that there are  some very good, comparatively 'rules light' games that allow for a lot of PC customization (as much as 3e).  Some examples: Cinematic Unisystem (Angel/Buffy) and True 20 (which uses feats as the main way to distinguish between different characters).

C&C does allow for some customization (more than pre-3e D&D).  But customization is not its forte, as it is focused on traditional 'D&D archetypes'.  For 'non-D&D-ish' campaigns, I would not use C&C, but instead Cinematic Unisystem or True 20.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Interestingly, at least one non-WotC company representative -- John Nephew, president of Atlas Games -- commented at Mearls' blog to point out that Mearls was plain wrong, at least with respect to his company (viz. Ars Magica 5th edition is doing very well, and outperforming the company's d20 material by a significant margin).  See the end of the comments here: http://www.livejournal.com/users/mearls/105311.html.  I can only imagine that what is true for Atlas is also true for a few other non-WotC companies -- and thus Mearls' generalizations are rubbish.



 Mearls has reaponded to John's post here

To sum it up with an excerpt from Mike's response:

"_To put it another way - I'm very happy to hear that Ars Magica is selling well. On the flip side, though, it's an almost 20 year old game designed by Jonathan Tweet, one of the best RPG designers in history. There aren't too many Tweets to go around, and companies without them are in trouble of falling farther and farther behind the curve._"

To which John responds further down in the thread.


----------



## JamesDJarvis

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Sorry, you're right.  I was thinking of the old pamphlet for 3rd Edition that was passed out in the stores.  Fourth Edition has a much more comprehensive 'Lite' version.  Still, the point stands.





GUPS -Lite 3rd edition was 32 pages in length also.

 It is also an incomplete game despite how comprehensive it manages to be in 32 pages.


----------



## diaglo

fredramsey said:
			
		

> Did chases, yep. Did light sources, yep. But the minis were there to establish marching order, and who had what opponents. Why? Because movement rates were so high (1 inch did NOT mean one inch on a battle mat. It was 10 feet indoors and 10 YARDS outdoors, or don't you remember that?).
> 
> So, if you used these so-called "movement rules" for tactical combat with minis, you would have to have played in a parking lot.
> 
> So, it was done with the good old imagination most of the time. Now, with 3rd edition, you can easily do indoor and outdoor combat on a mat. Why? It has tactical movement rules.



1 inch did equal 1 inch on the battle map for the minis


----------



## diaglo

fredramsey said:
			
		

> Movement rate for unencumbered human = 12"
> 
> Converting for indoor movement = 120 feet
> 
> Converting for battlemat scale of 1 square = 5' (and it was, or you could never stand side by side in a 10' square) = 24"
> 
> 24" = 2 feet of movement per round. Check your battlemat.
> 
> Average dungeon room = 30' x 30'
> 
> 30' x 30' = 6" x 6", real measurement.
> 
> Movement rate of an unencumbered human per round = 24 squares/24 real inches.
> 
> Thus, you could move from any point in the room, to any other point in the room, at no penalty. And, other than stepping up to the next opponent, what encourages you to move? Fireballs? Indoors, Fireball took up so many cubic squares.
> 
> Outdoors, range was in 1" = 10 yards, or 30 feet.
> 
> Movement rate for an unencumbered human outdoors? 12"
> 
> 1" = 10 yards = 30 feet = 60"
> 
> My battlemat didn't span 5'
> 
> So, again, only for relative positioning.
> 
> Does that make it any clearer? No tacticial movement rules, period.




minis were 25 mm scale. 1 inch = 25.4 mm
it wasn't by coincidence.


----------



## diaglo

Campbell said:
			
		

> It's threads like these that make me miss Hong's presence.
> 
> Campbell "You Miss Him Too" Ooi




i'm not missing Hong

I'm hitting him right now.

IYKWIMAITYD


----------



## diaglo

Psion said:
			
		

> Good lord, where's the _hate_ people!?
> 
> What's all this... _apologizing_?



sorry, i had to go home for the day. i'm back now.


----------



## fredramsey

diaglo said:
			
		

> 1 inch did equal 1 inch on the battle map for the minis




No, it didn't. 1" = 10' indoors, 1" = 10 yards outdoors. It was a SCALE, nothing about a battle mat. And, if you did use 1" = 10' on a battlemat, you couldn't use miniatures, because you couldn't have people side by side in a 10' corridor.

I don't give a crap what system you play NOW, I played 1st Edition AD&D for YEARS. You can't just pop something off like that without proof.

Christ.


----------



## fredramsey

diaglo said:
			
		

> minis were 25 mm scale. 1 inch = 25.4 mm
> it wasn't by coincidence.




So, what you're saying with that, is a mini of a fighter, at 1" tall, was 10' tall.

Big guy.

Oh, and good job addressing the actual rules I was referring to.

Since you didn't, then this particular topic is resolved.

No tactical movement rules in AD&D 1st Edition.


----------



## Psion

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Interestingly, at least one non-WotC company representative -- John Nephew, president of Atlas Games -- commented at Mearls' blog to point out that Mearls was plain wrong, at least with respect to his company (viz. Ars Magica 5th edition is doing very well, and outperforming the company's d20 material by a significant margin).




I think John lays it on pretty thick in the unsupported assertion department:



> How can D&D now be the best game in the RPG world, if no statistically significant portion of its users really grok it, even after 5 years of play?




I'm wondering what statitistical study he drew this from.

Rollyeyes icon, how I miss you...


----------



## Gentlegamer

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> In THAC0, a character had to roll a certain number to hit AC0. As the character progressed, his "target number" (THAC0) decreased (A THAC0 of 19 rather than a +1 to hit). The C&C SIEGE system takes a base target number (18) and then adjusts it _downward_ to 12 if the skill is a prime. In other words, Primes in Siege give a TN of 12 vs. 18, rather than a +6 to checks)



Many C&C players explain the prime as a +6 so that d20 players understand it.  It makes no difference how you think of it as long as the finaly TN comes out the same.


> Consequently, having a Prime implies that the task is somehow easier for the character with a Prime, as opposed to the character is more skilled. This gets to the subjective, relative nature of C&C's resolution system.



It means the character is "more trained" or "talented" in tasks that fall under the prime attributes.  It doesn't require listing each specific narrow skill the character is proficient in.  An added level of skill is represented by adding the character's experience level to certain checks.


> However, the mere fact that Primes lower the target number, _rather than raising the skill roll_ is THAC0-ish.



Both means you can succeed on a lower roll of the die, that is, it is easier.  It has zero relation to the way THAC0 used to work.


> But why a lower target number rather than a bonus to the skill? Just seems weird.



You can think of it either way, it makes no difference.  I would hazard to say it is to reduce the number of +/- modifiers you have on your character sheet.



> Those are things it DOES by virtue of what it _takes away_ from the Core rules of the game (as presented in the OGL that C&C is published under). I specifically asked what it "added" to the game. You gave the answers I've come to expect from C&C players - it enhances the game experience by virtue of what it removes. That's a subjective value judgement, not an objective addition of new rules.



And you give a response I've come to expect from d20 Fantasy players - the game experience can only be enhanced by more rules.


----------



## diaglo

fredramsey said:
			
		

> I don't give a crap what system you play NOW, I played 1st Edition AD&D for YEARS. You can't just pop something off like that without proof.
> 
> Christ.




well Christ,

i don't care what you played. i played OD&D. it had the rule that 1 inch = 10 ft indoors and 10 yards outdoors for the minis.


----------



## fredramsey

diaglo said:
			
		

> well Christ,
> 
> i don't care what you played. i played OD&D. it had the rule that *1 inch = 10 ft  indoors and 10 yards outdoors for the minis*.




Excellent. You just proved my point.

So, either a 1" tall mini of a fighter meant that the fighter was 10' tall (he should have been a basketball player), or 1" on the battlemat did not equal 1" in the rules.

I'm glad to see we are in agreement.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Mythmere1 said:
			
		

> Wow, when I last left this thread it wasn't a festival of C&C bashing.  Scadgrad, Akrasia, let the Knights of Wrongfun pontificate, and just ignore it.  When you see someone state that changing a game by removing rules is subjective, but adding rules is objective, you've just got someone who's a rules junkie.  He certainly wouldn't enjoy C&C, from what I've read of his posts he doesn't understand the rules, and he's just trolling.
> 
> The more you try to respond, the more you fuel the people who are threatened by other rule systems.  If you're going to argue, at least argue with Joshua Dyal or MoogleEmpMog or someone who prefers 3E without feeling threatened enough to sling insults.



Good call.

Everyone remember: this discussion has been brought on by Dancey's remark that the only reason some people think "rules lite" is "simpler and better" is because they "desperately" want it to be true, "not because it is."  That is, those who like such things are deluded and desperate and none of their experience in gaming that has formed their preference is relevant, because according to his exacting study of "rules lite" and "rules heavy" games, there is no way that the "handling" time is any different between the two.


----------



## Psion

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Analogously, if I, as an employee of Stanford University, started making gross , unsupported generalizations about other universities and departments on my blog, I think that people would be well justified in being annoyed with me, and accusing me of being irresponsible.




I'll trust that you have the right of how things would proceed in your particular academic environment.

But I think you may have a bit of a faulty point of reference. I, instead, would compare this to smack talk in professional sports. There are predictions and posturing, some of which is based on previous track records, but such predictions are often wrong and dark horses often come forth.

That said, if those 2004 numbers someone posted are accurate, then I don't know that Mearls claims are outlandish. It's WotC, WW, and "everybody else". At least a few years ago, non-WotC d20 was collectively easily pulling in a double digit take of the market share, but now, that only two "mainly d20" companies were even worth mentioning; all other companies on the list that did d20 have largely withdrawn from it.

Hmmm... do I smell a rhetorical pre-emptive strike of some sort?


----------



## Rasyr

If we are going to start discussing the predictions themselve, perhaps we ought to move it to another thread.


----------



## Psion

More stuff plucked from the livejournal:



			
				Mearls said:
			
		

> I'll draw an analogy.
> 
> Why did TSR release the SAGA system? Think back to that time - 2e was sinking, TSR was in dire shape. Why do you think they released SAGA?




Heh... okay, I think he has a point. Still in the vein of "the Lakers choked in the finals last season"; it says something. It's certainly not Ironclad.

Edit: In fact, didn't someone upthread make the prediction that next edition would be any more minis-dependant? I don't think that's a prediction more startling or uninformed than this.


----------



## Belen

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I don't think 'customization' requires a 'complexity'.  It is worth mentioning that there are  some very good, comparatively 'rules light' games that allow for a lot of PC customization (as much as 3e).  Some examples: Cinematic Unisystem (Angel/Buffy) and True 20 (which uses feats as the main way to distinguish between different characters).
> 
> C&C does allow for some customization (more than pre-3e D&D).  But customization is not its forte, as it is focused on traditional 'D&D archetypes'.  For 'non-D&D-ish' campaigns, I would not use C&C, but instead Cinematic Unisystem or True 20.




You have some "odd" views on D&D/d20 and I think you have moved beyond your burnout with 3e to active hatred of the system.  You have been parroting the same comments for so long that most of your posts seem like deja vu.

D&D can be hard to run, but not nearly as difficult as you make it.  If you have a lot of rules monkeys in a group, then the game is a nightmare, but otherwise fairly easy to run.  

The main problem is that few companies really embraced d20.  Rather, they wanted to keep playing the same game of writing their stuff and window dressing it in a system they think they could have designed better.

I really think you should take a break from the d20 hatred for a while.


----------



## Desdichado

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I don't understand what this means.



I do--that's how I play d20.  buzz and others can talk all they want about players need to know how to ballpark Jumps across chasms (although I think Ourph sufficiently demonstrated that setting DC's in 3e "RAW" can be just as arbitrary as any other task resolution system with which I'm familiar) but that's not how it works in my game.

There's a few reasons for this.  *1).* A chasm on the battlemap isn't a very interesting challenge.  Jumping between two airships that are bucking in a storm thousands of feet above the surface with slippery, angled decks is more like the kind of challenge I'd be likely to use.  And the description of modifiers in the Jump skill write-up is notably more vague on those type of things, making my various situational modifiers more important, and the "RAW" less so.  *2).*  The idea that players "need" to know more or less where their modifers are going to end up on their own, and don't want to be subject to the vagaries of GM interpretation is a personal preference.  In my group, we don't need to know that.  We have no problem either asking the GM how hard it would be to do something, or just attempting it anyway based on our understanding of how hard it looks to be in real life and trusting that the DC will accurately reflect that.  The first is an issue of player/GM communication, the second is an issue of player/GM compatibility.  *3).* buzz's argument seems to hang its hat on being wary of such player/GM compatibility.  In point of fact, I know what DC's are likely to be just based on the fact that I know my group, and all of us GM at times.  We all GM in a very similar style--we like having the rules of d20 handy if we need them, but in practice, we do a fair amount of handwaving and eyeballing of things rather than strict computations of them.  If we need to use a rule subsystem with which we're not very familiar (such as, say, sundering an opponent's weapon) we'll attempt to look it up.  If it can't be found in, oh, 30 seconds to a minute or so, we discuss it for a few seconds, come up with a solution that we all think is reasonable, accept it and move on, while the affected player may continue to search for the _actual_ rule while waiting for his next turn, just so we can all know better next time.

To get back to Ryan Dancey's point, for a moment if I may, we _do_ have more discussions about rulings in rules-heavy games, mainly because we don't exactly remember what all the rules are, especially subsets that aren't used very often.  We don't have discussions about the "arbitrariness" of rules-lite scenarios because 1) we don't argue anyway, so we'd all accept the GM's ruling without argument, and 2) we're all on the same page, so to speak, and we also don't argue with GM's rulings because they seem natural and intuitive to us as well--i.e., if _we_ were GMing that same situation, we'd handle it the same way.

Since we seem to fit the profile of rules lite players in many ways, it's perhaps surprising that in general we all prefer to play d20, but play it somewhat fast-n-loose with a "rules lite" style.  But we like the robustness of the system.  We like that there's rules for lots of situations and scenarios that can be adapted to whatever happens to come up.  To use an example of mine from earlier in the thread, swinging on a rope from the fo'c's'le to hit the orc pirate in the face and knock him over the railing into the briny deep, for example, is not covered by the d20 rules, but it's easy to make up a DC on the fly for your Use Rope check (or whatever skill you think appropriate) for the swing, and if it's successful rule that you can then make a Bull Rush attack with a +4 circumstantial bonus, or whatever.

The robustness and completeness of the rules is a feature we can use to cover all kinds of situations, even those that aren't necessarily specifically spelled out in the rules.  They are not a constraining force for us that we feel bound to follow to the letter, though, especially when it's slowing down our pace, for which we have much less patience than for the occasional DC that's off by a point or two because we didn't calculate it exactly.


----------



## fredramsey

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> [snip]
> 
> The robustness and completeness of the rules is we can use to cover all kinds of situations, even those that aren't necessarily specifically spelled out in the rules.  They are not a constraining force for us that we feel bound to follow to the letter, though, especially when it's slowing down our pace, for which we have much less patience than for the occasional DC that's off by a point or two because we didn't calculate it exactly.




Very well put. I think that balances both sides of this argument quite well, and even may point to the fact that there shouldn't be an argument to begin with.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Someone said that we C&Cers can't talk about what we like about C&C, but what we don't like about 3e.  Imo, that's because the very absense of some of 3e's rules IS what I like about C&C, and conversely, is what I don't like about 3e.  Aoos, ninja rogues instead of thieves, multiple attacks for clerics, rogues, and wizards, wilderogue rangers, counting every 5 foot step, one thousand hit point critters.  I could go on.  Now, I'm not really bashing 3e, if you like those things, fine.  I don't.  But I get the feeling that 3e players think I'm somehow inferior for NOT caring for those things.  That I just "don't get it."  I suppose the reverse is true as well, but the C&C fans get dismissed because we are a minority, and thus must be wrong.

As for Dancey's claim, well, last night's 3e game lasted until midnight.  ONE battle with a bunch of drow.  Five and a half hours.  Would have been maybe 45 minutes in C&C.


----------



## Psion

Piggybacking here...



			
				Akrasia said:
			
		

> I don't think 'customization' requires a 'complexity'. It is worth mentioning that there are some very good, comparatively 'rules light' games that allow for a lot of PC customization (as much as 3e).




You know, I like True20, but there is one thing I don't like about it, and it gives the lie to the notion that it allows "as much (customization) as 3e": the "all skills are maxed out" simplification.

Don't get me wrong; it's a simplification that I have used myself when churning out NPCs and when teaching my daughter d20. But it does make the characters more "chunky".


----------



## Desdichado

Mythmere1 said:
			
		

> The more you try to respond, the more you fuel the people who are threatened by other rule systems.  If you're going to argue, at least argue with Joshua Dyal or MoogleEmpMog or someone who prefers 3E without feeling threatened enough to sling insults.



 That may be the first time I've seen someone refer to me as someone they'd refer to argue with because at least my argument is substantive instead of insulting.  Makes an old fart like me feel loved.


----------



## fredramsey

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> That may be the first time I've seen someone refer to me as someone they'd refer to argue with because at least my argument is substantive instead of insulting.  Makes an old fart like me feel loved.




While you may be frustrating to argue with sometimes, you're much more civil about it than I am.   

Keeping your cool is a good trait.


----------



## der_kluge

For the record, I'm currently playing in a C&C game. My GM is Scadgrad, and he has turned what would otherwise be a pile of crap (IMNSHO) into a really playable, fun, fast-paced game.

Let's consider C&C RAW -

- boiler plate classes, little to no customization from a mechanical standpoint
- no feats
- no skills
- horrible layout, tons of typos
- no rules for miniatures (that I am aware of)

At face value, C&C is an awful game, especially coming from the flexibility of 3rd edition.

3e RAW -
- feats and skills
- prestige classes (not that I care much about these)
- suffers from some "boiler-plate" issues, like racial abilities, class abilities (let's face it, it's no GURPS or HERO)
- rules for miniatures
- great production values, TONS of support

Scadgrad has taken what I would consider to be a nearly unplayable game into something great.  How?  He added back in feats, some basic miniatures rules, and some basic criticals rules. There are still a few things he and I disagree on, like weapon damage, for starters, but that's a minor thing.  (In C&C, the only differentiator between weapons is damage, and how many hands it takes to wield).

In short, I would hate playing C&C as written. From a player's standpoint, it's very restrictive - no customization (see my thread a while back about trying to make a dex-based fighters with C&C rules). The lack of miniatures play devolves into "Where am I? Can I get there? Where is the creature at? How many can I get with my fireball?" kinds of discussions, which I suffered through in 2nd edition.

That said, the major benefit of C&C, as written, is the simplicity of the stat block. It utilizes a more 1st edition/2nd edition style stat block. Something more or less like:

skeletons (3): AL: NE; Init: +1; AC: 15; HP 6; 
notes: half damage from non-bludgeoning weapons

that's basically it.



		Code:
	

Compare that to a 3rd edition skeleton stat block:
 	Medium Undead 
Hit Dice: 	1d12 (6 hp) 
Initiative: 	+5 
Speed: 	30 ft. (6 squares) 
Armor Class: 	15 (+1 Dex, +2 natural, +2 heavy steel shield), touch 11, flat-footed 14
Base Attack/Grapple:	+0/+1
Attack:	Scimitar +1 melee (1d6+1/18–20) or claw +1 melee (1d4+1)
Full Attack:	Scimitar +1 melee (1d6+1/18–20) or 2 claws +1 melee (1d4+1)
Space/Reach:	5 ft./5 ft.
Special Attacks: —	—
Special Qualities:	Damage reduction 5/bludgeoning, darkvision 60 ft., immunity to cold, undead traits
Saves:	Fort +0, Ref +1, Will +2
Abilities: Str 13, Dex 13, Con —, Int —, Wis 10, Cha 1	Str 13, Dex 17, Con —, Int —, Wis 10, Cha 1
Feats:	Improved Initiative
Environment:	Temperate plains
Organization:	Any
Challenge Rating:	1/3
Treasure:	None
Alignment:	Always neutral evil
Advancement:	—
Level Adjustment:	—


(as a side note, since when are skeletons only found in temperate plains?!?!)

wow, what a difference. 

The game play in the middle of the game is not any different, nor should it be. People still role-play, they still roll dice, they still eat cheesy poops and drink Mountain Dew.

The lack of complexity in the stat block greatly simplifies the work of the GM, and detracts very little from actual game play, freeing up the GM to do more things with his time, rather than tweaking a creatures feats, or whatnot. The idea of scaling a creature to be more powerful by adding levels has always been there - it's called adding more hit points! 

Looking at it a different way, if you take the concept of the game itself - applying rules to simulate real-world (albeit fantastical) situations.

The number of those situations is infinite. So, is it better to try to cover as many of them as possible, or just admit right up front "hey, this is impossible, so I'm just going to cover the bases". I think the latter.


I don't think C&C is perfect - far from it. I think there's a happy middle ground. I think the game we have currently is damn nearly there.

I've rambled on enough.


----------



## Voadam

JamesDJarvis said:
			
		

> GUPS -Lite 3rd edition was 32 pages in length also.
> 
> It is also an incomplete game despite how comprehensive it manages to be in 32 pages.



What more do you need as a rule system? I remember it being pretty comprehensive and thinking I could run a game with it.


----------



## buzz

fredramsey said:
			
		

> No tactical movement rules in AD&D 1st Edition.



Based on my checking my 1e DMG last night, I'm finding your apparent defintion of "tactical" interesting. 

The 1e DMG, as someone pointed out, specifically addresses scale during *combat* as 1" = 10'. It has a table that lists what the base movement rates translate to per round and _per segment_. I gives battlemat diagrams (for both squares and hexes) that define facing, talks about how many squares/hexes creatures of different sizes take up, provides to-hit bonuses for attacking the flank or the rear, getting free attacks on an opponent who is fleeing (and who also loses their Dex bonus to AC, RAW), tables and rules for handling pursuit, and the rules in general provide area effect measurements in inches, and lets not forget reach weapons.

In all, this is not very different from 3e. 3e is just clearer and more consistent. Positioning matters, as do tactics, ergo, _tactical_.

If 1e is supposedly not "tactical", then I'm not really sure what it is, becasue it's certainly not "narrative". I.e., your PC's chance to hit isn't based on their resolve or how important the opponent is to te plot.

Granted, it's hard to puzzle this all out given the writing and the inconsistencies in the rules. E.g., none of the base movement rates are in multiples of 10, so a PC who moves at 9" moves 9' in a single segment. Assuming that a PC has performed actions that have used up some of their segments (adjudicating which is specifically addressed), I'm not sure how you'd measure out their movement on a mat with 1" = 10' squares, or your personal 1" = 5' squares.


----------



## buzz

Voadam said:
			
		

> What more do you need as a rule system? I remember it being pretty comprehensive and thinking I could run a game with it.



The new 4e GURPS Lite has only basic chargen and action-resolution info. There's no sample magic system presented as in the 3e version, and no unusual Advantages or Disads. There's rules for making realistic human beings in a contemporary setting and that's about it.

It's less of a mini-GURPS like 3e's was and more of a GURPS primer. I can see how one would be hard-pressed to use it alone.


----------



## Desdichado

buzz said:
			
		

> how important the opponent is to te plot.



Shouldn't that be "teh plot?"


----------



## buzz

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Shouldn't that be "teh plot?"



Pol Pot?


----------



## fredramsey

It's becaused no one I ever ran into all those years used segments that much, only for spellcasting. It was rounds. And in a round, your average thief or wizard (unencumbered for obvious reasons) could move 2 FEET on the battlemat in a round. No use there.

And yes, it was 5' on the battlemat. You can't possible sit there and tell me you drew a 30' x30' dungeon room on a battle map that was 3 1" squares by 3 1" squares. Get out your current mat and try it. One mini per square? No walking two by two down a 10' hall? Nope, never saw anyone in all the years I played 1st Ed & 2nd Ed do that. You couldn't represent the action that way.

So no one bothered to move, except to step up to the next opponent, or for area of effect spells. There was no need, no rules to support why you would do that.

I think sometimes people view those 1st Edtion days through too much of a nostalgia filter. Gameplay was just not the detailed, tactical affair it is today in 3.x. Large movement rates, in YARDS outdoors. Yards. 6 squares on the battle mat per 1" outdoor scale. And again, using outdoor scale, an unencumbered human could move 72 squares on the battle mat. That's 5 FEET. So, no one playing on any table I can imagine counted out squares in an outdoor fight.

Strategic? Yes. But not tactical. 3.x gave us tactical movement. Movement that matters. Knockback/Bull Rush. 5' steps. The whole shebang. I started to create this for 1st Edition myself. I was going to cut the rounds from 1 minute to 10 seconds, use a formula to come up with a squares/round, etc. I just never finished it.



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> Based on my checking my 1e DMG last night, I'm finding your apparent defintion of "tactical" interesting.
> 
> The 1e DMG, as someone pointed out, specifically addresses scale during *combat* as 1" = 10'. It has a table that lists what the base movement rates translate to per round and _per segment_. I gives battlemat diagrams (for both squares and hexes) that define facing, talks about how many squares/hexes creatures of different sizes take up, provides to-hit bonuses for attacking the flank or the rear, getting free attacks on an opponent who is fleeing (and who also loses their Dex bonus to AC, RAW), tables and rules for handling pursuit, and the rules in general provide area effect measurements in inches, and lets not forget reach weapons.
> 
> In all, this is not very different from 3e. 3e is just clearer and more consistent. Positioning matters, as do tactics, ergo, _tactical_.
> 
> If 1e is supposedly not "tactical", then I'm not really sure what it is, becasue it's certainly not "narrative". I.e., your PC's chance to hit isn't based on their resolve or how important the opponent is to te plot.
> 
> Granted, it's hard to puzzle this all out given the writing and the inconsistencies in the rules. E.g., none of the base movement rates are in multiples of 10, so a PC who moves at 9" moves 9' in a single segment. Assuming that a PC has performed actions that have used up some of their segments (adjudicating which is specifically addressed), I'm not sure how you'd measure out their movement on a mat with 1" = 10' squares, or your personal 1" = 5' squares.


----------



## Remathilis

Mythmere1 said:
			
		

> An excellent point.  You may have explained the odd results of the experiment.  Mr. Dancey thought he was watching gamers, but saw only himself ...




There's something rather Niechie about that...


----------



## Remathilis

fredramsey said:
			
		

> It's becaused no one I ever ran into all those years used segments that much, only for spellcasting. It was rounds. And in a round, your average thief or wizard (unencumbered for obvious reasons) could move 2 FEET on the battlemat in a round. No use there.
> 
> And yes, it was 5' on the battlemat. You can't possible sit there and tell me you drew a 30' x30' dungeon room on a battle map that was 3 1" squares by 3 1" squares. Get out your current mat and try it. One mini per square? No walking two by two down a 10' hall? Nope, never saw anyone in all the years I played 1st Ed & 2nd Ed do that. You couldn't represent the action that way.
> 
> So no one bothered to move, except to step up to the next opponent, or for area of effect spells. There was no need, no rules to support why you would do that.
> 
> I think sometimes people view those 1st Edtion days through too much of a nostalgia filter. Gameplay was just not the detailed, tactical affair it is today in 3.x. Large movement rates, in YARDS outdoors. Yards. 6 squares on the battle mat per 1" outdoor scale. And again, using outdoor scale, an unencumbered human could move 72 squares on the battle mat. That's 5 FEET. So, no one playing on any table I can imagine counted out squares in an outdoor fight.
> 
> Strategic? Yes. But not tactical. 3.x gave us tactical movement. Movement that matters. Knockback/Bull Rush. 5' steps. The whole shebang. I started to create this for 1st Edition myself. I was going to cut the rounds from 1 minute to 10 seconds, use a formula to come up with a squares/round, etc. I just never finished it.




I take your ploy and raise you one. Since I hate 1e's books for finding anysort of rule (Gygax was a master poet and designer, but had the organizational skills of a butterfly on crystal meth). 

So instead, I present you with the rules from the OneTru TM  version of D&D:


			
				D&D Rules Cyclopedia said:
			
		

> Map Scales
> You may want to keep maps of the characters' travels; it's usually a very good idea in traditional dungeon-based campaigns, and the DM may insist on it. With dungeon or indoor maps, you use graph paper. *Each square on the paper typically represents 10' of distance*. With wilderness or outdoor maps, you use hex paper. Map hex scales vary widely, but the most commonly used D&D game scales usually have one hex represent 8 or 24 miles. Always check the map key printed on maps. In any case, the DM will tell you if he or she wants you to map in a different scale.
> 
> Miniature Figures
> Your campaign group might like to use miniature figures to represent all characters and monsters, especially in combat encounters. Several types of miniature figures are available from toy and hobby shops worldwide that are made of metal, plastic, or cardboard; the metal
> and plastic ones are suitable for painting. With so many available, you should be able to find
> figures that look very similar to your characters. *The 25mm figurines (a human is about 1" tall) are well-suited to D&D games.**When you use miniatures to conduct combat, 1" on the table surface represents 10' of distance. If a character can move 30 yards (90') in a round, you'd move his figure 9" ahead on the table.*You can use a ruler to measure distances or you can buy one of many vinyl or plastic playing surfaces that are already gridded into inches. Additionally, you can use watercolor markers to draw room and situation details on vinyl or plastic surfaces and easily erase them once the combat is done.
> 
> Movement
> You learned about movement in Chapter 6. Here are some additional details:
> • *Encounter Speed: A character or monster may move his full encounter speed movement
> (1/3 normal movement in one round) and still make his attacks this round.*• Running Speed: A character or monster may move his full running speed movement (3 x normal movement) this round if he is not already engaged in combat but cannot attack if he does so.
> • Normal Speed: A character's normal speed is never used during the combat sequence. Simple, quick actions such as drawing a new weapon do not subtract from a character's movement score; the DM may choose to deduct some of a character's movement for the round if he performs any more complicated maneuvers. Standing up after a fall, however, does count as an action in a combat round.
> 
> Fighting Withdrawal
> A character can only perform this maneuver when he begins his combat round in hand-to-hand combat with an enemy.* With this maneuver, the character backs away from his enemy at a rate of 5' per round. * He makes no attack unless his enemies follow him later in the same combat round, on the enemies' own movement phase. If they do, he can make his attack at the end of the enemies' movement phase, before the enemies begin their own attacks. The character's attack is the same as a normal attack. If he is not in handto-hand combat with his enemy when his movement phase comes around in the next round, he can go to running speed that next round.
> 
> Retreat
> A character can only perform this maneuver when he begins his combat round in hand-tohand combat with an enemy. *The character runs away from his enemy at greater than half his encounter speed, up to his full encounter speed. * He forfeits the armor class bonus of his shield. Any enemy attacking him later in the combat round (that is, either an enemy who followed him during the enemies' movement phase or an enemy attacking with a ranged weapon) receives a +2 attack roll bonus this round. This is the same + 2 that characters normally get for attacking from behind (see the Attack Roll Modifiers Table on page 108).
> If the character is not in hand-to-hand combat with his enemy when his movement phase comes up in the next round, he can go to running speed that next round.
> 
> Set Spear vs. Charge
> A character on foot and carrying a spear, pike, sword shield, or lance can set the weapon vs. a charge. A *charge is when a monster charges the character—that is, runs toward him for 20 or more yards before its attack.* A character can also set his spear vs. another character's lance attack against him...




Granted, the rules evolved over 10 years (this printing was 92?) but they existed, in a very Rules-Lite version of D&D, and are better spelled out than the in AD&D1. 

Sorry, YOU might have never used movement in your game, but it WAS there in D&D since Diaglo's time.


----------



## scadgrad

der_kluge said:
			
		

> ...I don't think C&C is perfect - far from it. I think there's a happy middle ground. I think the game we have currently is damn nearly there.





We're going a bit off topic here in a way, but I just wanted to respond to Curtis.

Yep, the simplicity from a DM's perspective is what totally sold it for me. I love those 1 line stat blocks. Even w/ the "complexity" that I've added to our game (basically nothing really), the Big Bad Evil Fighter would be:

Humie FTR7 AC19 HPs 60 Primes Str +2, Con +2, Dex +1 
Weap Spec LSword, Combat Dom, Dodge, Impr Init, PwAttk, Cleave
Some gear 

And I can make that guy up in about 3 minutes.

I fundamentally disagree that C&C Raw is Awful. It's just not something that you personally would enjoy playing and as we've said many times before, I think that really does boil down to personality types. I'm wondering what you'd make of something like CoC since it lacks feats, miniatures, a robust combat system, etc.? Just curious.

Personally, I love games like that. And just to argue semantics, "boilerplate characters" is a bit more disparaging than the more appropriate "archetypal characters," but maybe it's just me.

And finally, all of the things that I've added to our game will soon be part of C&C. Remember that the game is still very much a work in progress and that the optional rules will come later in the CKG. I think it's just easier to get your head around the game if you view it as a Bridge between all editions which allows you to pick and choose what you add to your game from where.


----------



## buzz

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> So, help me out here. Is the problem that GM-set difficulties are railroading? Because I can't get it -- if the GM wants to make it impossible to jump, or easy, or in between, he can do that either way. (The exception being that he's working from a published module, in which case the writer set the difficulty.)



My issue is that, _as described_ (because I'm really not trying to pick on C&C specifically; I don't know enough about it, but am going on what has been explained to me), it seems like the C&C (or fiat) method doesn't really tell me anything about the capabilties of my PC. If, as soneome else mentioned, the TNs in C&C are generally going to be level-appropriate, and the TN for that jump is going to remain essentially "50% chance for your PC to do something heroic" no matter what level the PC is or what his stats are, then why does my PC even have a Str stat to begin with? How am I supposed to know anything about my PC when all of the numbers on the sheet are wholly subject to GM fiat? How does that help me make a decision when my turn comes up? Every turn becomes a game of 20 questions with the GM.

I mean, it seems like what really makes a difference in C&C specificaly is whether a stat is a prime or not; that has a much bigger effect than the range of bonuses a stat can provide. On top of this, it seems like TNs will be "level-appropriate", yet also highly variable at a GM's whimsy.

So, why isn't each stat just listed with a value of "good" or "bad", and why do PCs level up? If the GM is always going to just make the TN whatever it needs to be so that my PC's chances are 50/50, why the heck do I even need to be keeping track of as many numbers as the rules say I do? Apparently, my PC will never get to a point where I can be confident in their ability to accomplish a task, becasue any given task can be set at whtever TN the GM wants.

In D&D, this is not the case, becasue the numbers on my sheet mean something, and I have some assurance that the DM doesn't just make up DCs whole cloth. Sure, the DM is the one drawing out the battlefield, and thus can rig things so that even a 10' jump is impossible. But the DM isn't always just "rigging things". Most often, he's just drawing a map. Being able to look at that map and have a concrete idea of how the numbers on my sheet interact with that map helps me as a player. He also is working within a framework we both understand.

E.g., when my barbairan was 1st-level, his Jump skill wasn't so high that he'd be using a half-fallen dining table as a ramp to leap 15' at a satyr crouched behind a chair on the other side of the room. At 11th level, though, I _know_ he can do this barring very unusual circumstances. The decision whether he can is not entirely up to the DM. If it were, then there would be no point to tracking ranks, and my skill should just be listed as "good"/"bad".



			
				SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> Is the problem that it's unrealistic? If so, that's a valid preference -- if you mean,  "I prefer concrete situations which I can assess using the rules," then that's more of an issue that you prefer a different way of interfacing with the shared imaginative environment.



It could be entirely my preference, yes. 

I guess my main point goes back to what I was saying about narrative games. IMO, "lite" games works best when any pretense of simulationism is thrown out the window. If you're going to put numbers on a character sheet that supposedly track objective qualities (strength, level of skill, weight), those numbers should have meaning and relate to the task. I don't see the point of making a roll based on Str when the TN is based on narrative importance. That's a disconnect for me.

This is why I keep coming back to the pseudo-_HeroQuest_ example of my idea of a good "lite" RPG. The numbers on the HQ sheet are all narrative assessments, becasue that's what the GM uses to set up tasks; the frame of reference is the _same_. That appeals to me.

_Buffy_, which I like, has sort of a disconnect. PCs have a Strength stat, but the GM is still working in a pretty narrative mode. Thankfully, _Buffy_ has Drama Points, which allow the players to make the same sort of "narrative assessment" of a situation. GM: "This is a really important scene, so you're hard pressed to get past that vamp." Player: "Yes, it is important, so I'll spend a Drama Point to make sure I dust him."

I guess my position basically comes down to: I like good RPGs.  "Good" will be determined how said game fits my sensibilities (duh). I like "rules-sufficient" (or "robust" as Psion would have it  ) and don't like "rules-insufficient". 

Many "lite" RPGs don't appeal to me becasue they feel like the latter. As a player, I'm rolling all these stats and tracking numbers and using abilties that are listed as having some concrete metric, but then when I play, it all goes out the window and I have to rely on my GM to tell me what my PC can do.


----------



## fredramsey

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Sorry, YOU might have never used movement in your game, but it WAS there in D&D since Diaglo's time.




1. Never said I didn't use movement. Would have made it hard to get to the monsters. But round-to-round movement was never a tactical factor because of lack of need, when you could walk practically the length of the dungeon in one round.

2. I'm not going to go back through the posts, because it is not my job (I know what I was responding to), and it wasn't OD&D or Diaglo. It was 1st Edition AD&D, specifically.

And posting a bunch of rules from a game that was not the one I was addressing doesn't do much but wear out my mousewheel from scrolling.

And so, I think that about wraps that up.


----------



## Gentlegamer

None of the combat for AD&D or Mentzer D&D (or the Rules Cyclopedia, with is Allston edited Mentzer D&D) requried the use of a battlemap.  A battlemap could be used a visual aid, but it wasn't in any way required.  Most of the time, I was able to make out basic positioning of combatants mentally on my DM map.  That is, movement and positioning in those games was not tactical.  Tactical combat didn't come to AD&D until the aptly named _Combat & Tactics_ rulebook.  Like the old _Swords & Spells_, it was completely optional.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

der_kluge said:
			
		

> The game play in the middle of the game is not any different, nor should it be. People still role-play, they still roll dice, they still eat *cheesy poops* and drink Mountain Dew.




Wow, you guys sure play some weird games ...


----------



## buzz

fredramsey said:
			
		

> It's becaused no one I ever ran into all those years used segments that much, only for spellcasting....
> 
> Nope, never saw anyone in all the years I played 1st Ed & 2nd Ed do that. You couldn't represent the action that way....
> 
> So no one bothered to move, except to step up to the next opponent, or for area of effect spells. There was no need, no rules to support why you would do that.
> 
> So, no one playing on any table I can imagine counted out squares in an outdoor fight.



I think the point of contention here is that you're describing 1e _as you played it_, as opposed to what's written in the books. This is understandable, as the 1e rules are a mess; I don't think many people played them as written. Heck, Gygax didn't play them as written.



			
				fredramsey said:
			
		

> Strategic? Yes. But not tactical.



Well, then this is a semantic issue. "Strategy" is an equally apt term for what you would do with a simulationist RPG and what you would do with a narrative one, i.e. "a plan of action." "Tactics" is the use of manuevers against an enemy, or more generally, manuevers or proceedure used to achieve a specified goal.

AD&D1e most definitely provided manuevers and adjudication for the deployment and mvoement of "troops" (i.e., characters). The simple fact that there were bonuses for flank and rear attacks, that any scale converting inches to feet/yards was presented, and that reach and range mattered (more than 10' away and you could not make a melee attack), demonstrates pretty readily that 1e was "tactical". As has been shown by myself and many others, most all of the manuevers in 3e exist in some form in 1e. The difference is just that 3e's rules are comprehensible.

Whether _you played it that way_ is a different issue.

Honestly, read the 1e DMG chapter on combat, especially the example of combat. It's not particularly different from 3e in the grand scheme of things. Unarmed and nonlethal combat is just much simpler now.


----------



## Remathilis

fredramsey said:
			
		

> 1. Never said I didn't use movement. Would have made it hard to get to the monsters. But round-to-round movement was never a tactical factor because of lack of need, when you could walk practically the length of the dungeon in one round.
> 
> 2. I'm not going to go back through the posts, because it is not my job (I know what I was responding to), and it wasn't OD&D or Diaglo. It was 1st Edition AD&D, specifically.
> 
> And posting a bunch of rules from a game that was not the one I was address doesn't do much but wear out my mousewheel from scrolling.
> 
> And so, I think that about wraps that up.




1.) If you could walk the length of the dungeon in one minute, most of them dungeons were pretty dang small.

2.)Lots of other people have posted the rules from AD&D1. You are simply ignoring them or twisting them as you see fit (based rightly or wrongly on your preceptions of the game). 

You moved 120' in one round. 1" = 10" feet on the grid. Simple math says thats 12 1" squares (120/10 = 12). Did you use that movement to move up and hit the thing? Probably yes, there wasn't anything else to do. 

This is the same for OD&D, Basic D&D, and AD&D 1 and 2. SAME. Combat and Tactics ushered in 5' squares and 10 second rounds. These were adapted for 3e. I posted the clearer version using the book I had (online btw, no I didn't type it). My AD&D book (pg 39) says the scale is the same. It listed all movement in inches because inches equaled feet indoors, yards outdoors. 

So Redgar (120" movement) moved 120' in a dungeon per round, 120 yards outside. He moved 1/2 of that and could still attack. 

Certainly more than the 2 ft your PCs were moving. 

If you wish to continue assuming you've won, go ahead. I can't convince you otherwise. But let it be known, for the record, that you have misconstrued something along the line.

Good gaming.


----------



## buzz

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> None of the combat for AD&D or Mentzer D&D (or the Rules Cyclopedia, with is Allston edited Mentzer D&D) requried the use of a battlemap.  A battlemap could be used a visual aid, but it wasn't in any way required.



This is very true. It's not explicitly stated anywhere in 1e that minis are required, and it seems like even Gygax didn't play on a battlemat all that much as D&D evolved.

However, the RAW do imply a relation to a battlemat (the use of inches and talk of scale), and there are plenty of combat rules that care about position, area, distance, and movement. Use of a battlemat would certainly be pretty useful for a game that, as written, cares about all this stuff. And it's not like the game explicitly states that you _shouldn't_ use minis. And given that there's been D&D-branded minis since the seventies, one would assume that somebody at TSR figured that D&D players would find them useful. 

And on the flip side, I've seen plenty of people here on the boards who don't use minis with 3e and seem to be having a good time.

Personally, if the rules care about the kind of thigns a battlemat helps track, I'll use a battlemat; adjudication is easier that way. If the rules don't address those issues, then the mat goes back up on my gaming shelf.


----------



## Silverleaf

Remathilis said:
			
		

> *Fighting Withdrawal*
> A character can only perform this maneuver when he begins his combat round in hand-to-hand combat with an enemy. With this maneuver, the character backs away from his enemy *at a rate of 5' per round*. He makes no attack unless his enemies follow him later in the same combat round, on the enemies' own movement phase. If they do, he can make his attack at the end of the enemies' movement phase, before the enemies begin their own attacks. The character's attack is the same as a normal attack. If he is not in handto-hand combat with his enemy when his movement phase comes around in the next round, he can go to running speed that next round.




Just in case you don't already know, that 5 ft/round is actually an error in the RC.  Both the Moldvay/Cook and Mentzer books had Fighting Withdrawal set to 1/2 your PC's encounter speed.  The RC was supposed to be a compilation of the BECM rules rather than a revision or new edition, so there was no valid reason to change it.
In fact, the combat chapter is a bit contradictory in a couple other places.  It's a very good book otherwise, just could have used some better editing.
BTW, there a really nice "RC Errata and Companion Document" here:
http://rcerrata.redirectme.net
(it's really big because most of it isn't actual errata, but clarifications and alternate or expanded rules)


----------



## fredramsey

buzz said:
			
		

> Honestly, read the 1e DMG chapter on combat, especially the example of combat. It's not particularly different from 3e in the grand scheme of things. Unarmed and nonlethal combat is just much simpler now.




Don't need to. I read it when it came out, and over and over for years after that.

Semantics? If that's what you want to call it, fine.


----------



## Remathilis

Silverleaf said:
			
		

> Just in case you don't already know, that 5 ft/round is actually an error in the RC.  Both the Moldvay/Cook and Mentzer books had Fighting Withdrawal set to 1/2 your PC's encounter speed.  The RC was supposed to be a compilation of the BECM rules rather than a revision or new edition, so there was no valid reason to change it.
> In fact, the combat chapter is a bit contradictory in a couple other places.  It's a very good book otherwise, just could have used some better editing.
> BTW, there a really nice "RC Errata and Companion Document" here:
> http://rcerrata.redirectme.net
> (it's really big because most of it isn't actual errata, but clarifications and alternate or expanded rules)




Ah yes, I forgot about the errata page. No book is perfect. That is a great site BTW.


----------



## buzz

Oh, the thread drift. 



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> So Redgar (120" movement) moved 120' in a dungeon per round, 120 yards outside. He moved 1/2 of that and could still attack.



If I remember what I read last night correctly, Regdar didn't move 120 yards outside _if he was in combat_. He would move 120', and I'm not even sure if he could move the entire 120' and still make an attack, if you were being zealous about segments.


----------



## Voadam

buzz said:
			
		

> The new 4e GURPS Lite has only basic chargen and action-resolution info. There's no sample magic system presented as in the 3e version, and no unusual Advantages or Disads. There's rules for making realistic human beings in a contemporary setting and that's about it.
> 
> It's less of a mini-GURPS like 3e's was and more of a GURPS primer. I can see how one would be hard-pressed to use it alone.




I have no experience with 4e or 4e lite so I'll take your word on that.

But the person I was quoting and responding to was saying the 3e one wasn't a complete game and I did have experience with 3e. I was asking what he thought was missing from the 3e lite.


----------



## Remathilis

buzz said:
			
		

> Oh, the thread drift.
> 
> 
> If I remember what I read last night correctly, Regdar didn't move 120 yards outside _if he was in combat_. He would move 120', and I'm not even sure if he could move the entire 120' and still make an attack, if you were being zealous about segments.




Thats entirely possible too. The version of D&D I played, the movement rules I used were posted above.


----------



## fredramsey

Remathilis said:
			
		

> 1.) If you could walk the length of the dungeon in one minute, most of them dungeons were pretty dang small.




Nice pick on an exaggeration.



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> 2.)Lots of other people have posted the rules from AD&D1. You are simply ignoring them or twisting them as you see fit (based rightly or wrongly on your preceptions of the game).
> 
> You moved 120' in one round. 1" = 10" feet on the grid. Simple math says thats 12 1" squares (120/10 = 12). Did you use that movement to move up and hit the thing? Probably yes, there wasn't anything else to do.




So, you drew dungeon rooms on a battlemat at 10' to the inch? How did you show people fighting side by side? Doesn't flush.



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> This is the same for OD&D, Basic D&D, and AD&D 1 and 2. SAME. Combat and Tactics ushered in 5' squares and 10 second rounds. These were adapted for 3e. I posted the clearer version using the book I had (online btw, no I didn't type it). My AD&D book (pg 39) says the scale is the same. It listed all movement in inches because inches equaled feet indoors, yards outdoors.



Different argument, different system.
AD&D 1st Editon is the topic in this sub-thread.



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> So Redgar (120" movement) moved 120' in a dungeon per round, 120 yards outside. He moved 1/2 of that and could still attack.
> 
> Certainly more than the 2 ft your PCs were moving.




And the usefulness of being able to move 60 feet and attack in a dungeon would be?

EDIT: Rephrase: What disadvantage would being able to move only 50' instead of 60' in your average dungeon and attack?



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> If you wish to continue assuming you've won, go ahead. I can't convince you otherwise. But let it be known, for the record, that you have misconstrued something along the line.
> 
> Good gaming.




That's really funny. That's just what I was thinking about people quoting OD&D, Basic D&D, and Rules Cyclopedia rules in a conversation about 1st Edition AD&D.

And still, no one has said they drew 1" = 10' on the battlemat. Hmmm.


----------



## scadgrad

buzz said:
			
		

> My issue is that, _as described_ (because I'm really not trying to pick on C&C specifically; I don't know enough about it, but am going on what has been explained to me), it seems like the C&C (or fiat) method doesn't really tell me anything about the capabilties of my PC. If, as soneome else mentioned, the TNs in C&C are generally going to be level-appropriate, and the TN for that jump is going to remain essentially "50% chance for your PC to do something heroic" no matter what level the PC is or what his stats are, then why does my PC even have a Str stat to begin with? How am I supposed to know anything about my PC when all of the numbers on the sheet are wholly subject to GM fiat? How does that help me make a decision when my turn comes up? Every turn becomes a game of 20 questions with the GM.




No it doesn't. The TN doesn't yield a 50% for the entirety of your PC's career. As the PC gains levels, he gets better at those logical things that the archetype would be skilled at.

You're being patently absurd here. The numbers *do mean something* and the only thing that will be affected by DM fiat is how difficult the task in question is.



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> I mean, it seems like what really makes a difference in C&C specificaly is whether a stat is a prime or not; that has a much bigger effect than the range of bonuses a stat can provide. On top of this, it seems like TNs will be "level-appropriate", yet also highly variable at a GM's whimsy.




Primes are incredibly important, but the class that you pick is also. And TNs are not necessarily "level appropriate." There's no more DM whimsy in my C&C games than in the 1000s of hours I spent DMing 3.X.



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> So, why isn't each stat just listed with a value of "good" or "bad", and why do PCs level up?




A very good point and one that was debated during play test. One could have easily made the stats w/ simple pluses and minuses as needed, but that gets too far away from one of the Gold Standards of D&D.



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> If the GM is always going to just make the TN whatever it needs to be so that my PC's chances are 50/50, why the heck do I even need to be keeping track of as many numbers as the rules say I do? Apparently, my PC will never get to a point where I can be confident in their ability to accomplish a task, becasue any given task can be set at whtever TN the GM wants.




Come on buzz, as the DM, I could do the same thing in 3.X just by saying the floor is really wet, loose stones, etc. Your charaters ability to "do stuff" in C&C is not always 50/50. In fact only rarely so. He/She will get better at certain tasks as you progress in level, exactly like 3.X. And the GM/CK/DM isn't just "making stuff up." There are standards by which those TNs can be easily arrived at.




			
				buzz said:
			
		

> E.g., when my barbairan was 1st-level, his Jump skill wasn't so high that he'd be using a half-fallen dining table as a ramp to leap 15' at a satyr crouched behind a chair on the other side of the room. At 11th level, though, I _know_ he can do this barring very unusual circumstances. The decision whether he can is not entirely up to the DM. If it were, then there would be no point to tracking ranks, and my skill should just be listed as "good"/"bad".




The same paradigm exists in C&C. An 11th level Barbie might make that leap easily as long as he doesn't succumb to the pipes first. A 1st level Barbie, probably not. In the end, the resulting outcome is the same. C&C just does away w/ the complexity of the current skill system.




			
				buzz said:
			
		

> It could be entirely my preference, yes.




And that's totally cool. 

For me, I'm perfectly comfortable with the fact that you and I can come up w/ what the difficulty of the aforementioned Brb jumping incident is (I'd say slightly difficult, but requiring as much Dex as Str and therefore you'd get both bonuses if you have them) and move on. In the 3.X example, the DM will have to apply some sort of modifier for using the table as a ramp won't he? Or is there a rule for that in 3.X that I've forgotten about?



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> I guess my main point goes back to what I was saying about narrative games. IMO, "lite" games works best when any pretense of simulationism is thrown out the window. If you're going to put numbers on a character sheet that supposedly track objective qualities (strength, level of skill, weight), those numbers should have meaning and relate to the task. I don't see the point of making a roll based on Str when the TN is based on narrative importance. That's a disconnect for me.




Well, that's not the case in C&C. Those numbers do mean something, you just fail to grasp how the system really works that's all. Not a slam, just evident, by your commentary.



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> As a player, I'm rolling all these stats and tracking numbers and using abilties that are listed as having some concrete metric, but then when I play, it all goes out the window and I have to rely on my GM to tell me what my PC can do.




C&C is really not like that. It's not 2nd ed, really. I don't spend anymore time in our current game "telling PCs what they can do" than I did in all of my 3.X campaigns.


----------



## Gentlegamer

buzz said:
			
		

> This is very true. It's not explicitly stated anywhere in 1e that minis are required, and it seems like even Gygax didn't play on a battlemat all that much as D&D evolved.
> 
> However, the RAW do imply a relation to a battlemat (the use of inches and talk of scale), and there are plenty of combat rules that care about position, area, distance, and movement. Use of a battlemat would certainly be pretty useful for a game that, as written, cares about all this stuff. And it's not like the game explicitly states that you _shouldn't_ use minis. And given that there's been D&D-branded minis since the seventies, one would assume that somebody at TSR figured that D&D players would find them useful.
> 
> And on the flip side, I've seen plenty of people here on the boards who don't use minis with 3e and seem to be having a good time.
> 
> Personally, if the rules care about the kind of thigns a battlemat helps track, I'll use a battlemat; adjudication is easier that way. If the rules don't address those issues, then the mat goes back up on my gaming shelf.



The point is that tactical combat (where precise positioning and blow-by-blow attack options) was not part of (A)D&D, and is not necessary in a fantasy RPG.  There is nothing illegitimate about adding it, as well.  Mearls had made a comment about rules interface that seemed (to me) to imply that such a thing was neccessary (instead of modular or optional) and by extension a RPG without it fell short in terms of "interface."


----------



## SweeneyTodd

Apart from the lengthy debate about AD&D 1e (which might have some relevance to this thread that escapes me), what I've taken from the last few pages is this:

Groups should use a rule system that supports their preferences and expectations. In addition, that system will often be shaped or "drifted" to bring it closer still to their preferences.

That's pretty straightforward. But what it make me realize is that we don't really have a good way of talking about what those expectations are. Now that I get it, I can see this kind of thing come up in house rules discussions, anytime people start debating "battlemat vs. no battlemat", and certainly in the C&C arguments. 

Very few people play 100% RAW. Whether you're adding house rules to a system,  ignoring rules in the book, or even adding a splatbook, you're shaping the system to match your needs. 

So how can we as gamers communicate those needs (especially within a group, which is the only place it really matters) rather than by debating the raw materials (like game systems and rules complexity)?


----------



## Psion

> And it's not like the game explicitly states that you shouldn't use minis. And given that there's been D&D-branded minis since the seventies, one would assume that somebody at TSR figured that D&D players would find them useful.




Not only has it had minis, in the 1e DMG IIRC it explicitly warns you against the dangers of using minis other than official D&D minis.


----------



## Shadowslayer

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Wow, you guys sure play some weird games ...




LOL  he said cheese poops. 

As an aside, my group always had a "no cheesie snacks" houserule. AFter all, after having paid like 150 bucks for the core rules, then splat books, monster books etc, _and you dont wanna get orange fingerprints all over everything._

Anyway, just to address something someone wrote earlier. It bears repeating that C&C is a new system, and that the second main book JUST came out.  I hear guys talking about dcs for jumping over pits etc, and I think this stuff is all still forthcoming in the CKG. There seems to be the impression that its simply DM fiat just cuz the dc for various tasks are not laid out in full.  Thats not entirely true. Any DM CK worth his salt is going to have some sort of system in place that the players will be made aware of. Players do need to have an idea of their characters capabilities so they can make judgements on a course of action. And I'd quit a game myself where the DM kept me guessing all the time what my character was capable of.

I love roleplaying, and I enjoy playing 3e too. My main beef with 3e is the constant glut of books. I've always been a "PHB only" player, but then again Ive always had other hobbies besides roleplaying games too. Im the guy who hears someone say "PHB only? How restrictive." and thinks "jeez, you got 77 different race/class combos in the core book, not counting multiclassing and PRCs, and that aint enough choice for ya?" But I dont say it because I dont want to restrict anyones fun, but Ill admit it does sour me on D&D a bit. But the game itself is great.  

My love for C&C is mainly because it gives me more bang for my buck as a DM. Prep is more fun, I dont need a computer app whenever I need a bunch of NPCs. Admittedly, I also have less to think about during combat, as theres little in the way of monster feats etc.  I also notice that my group is having as much fun as the last group I played D&D with, and the campaign is cracking along at a quicker pace then my 3e campaign ever did. 

So its all good. I think. Admittedly, Ive been trying to figure out the ultimate point of this thread and have so far been unsuccessful.


----------



## Turanil

It seems that the thread has reached its logical conclusion. That is, after having reading the entirety of this thread three times in a row and having made careful analysis, it's obvious that C&C wins and Ryan Dancey loses.

Now a mod can close the thread, thanks.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Welcome to the boards, Shadowslayer!

You sure picked an interesting topic for your first post!


----------



## fredramsey

Err, your vote has been cast and noted?

(Psst. Who is this guy, and why does he think he's in charge? That's just weird, man.)



			
				Turanil said:
			
		

> It seems that the thread has reached its logical conclusion. That is, after having reading the entirety of this thread three times in a row and having made careful analysis, it's obvious that C&C wins and Ryan Dancey loses.
> 
> Now a mod can close the thread, thanks.


----------



## Shadowslayer

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Welcome to the boards, Shadowslayer!
> 
> You sure picked an interesting topic for your first post!




Dude, this thread is a whole _cornucopia _ of different topcs.    

Thanks for the welcome though. (Ive lurked here from time to time)

Admittedly, I came here as a result of some chatter on a C&C board and came to see what all the hubbub was about.  Funny thing is, this is all the same stuff RPG folks have been arguing about since message boards got invented....gaming style. Even over on the C&C boards there are different styles within that game. There's guys who have been adding and tweaking rules since day 1 (which in fact may be necessary, as the game wont be complete until their DMG comes out) ANd there's guys like me who pretty much play it as is.

ANyway, I have a favourite article, one of Monte Cooks older ones. Not sure entirely how relevant it is to the myriad of debates happening here...but its worth a read if ya havent already.

http://www.montecook.com/arch_anrant3.html

Have fun. ( with whatever game you prefer )


----------



## buzz

scadgrad said:
			
		

> Come on buzz, as the DM, I could do the same thing in 3.X just by saying the floor is really wet, loose stones, etc.



Right, but most of those conditions get addressed in the books, or have guidance, or else are covered by something else. E.g., wet floors and losoe stones are handled by a Balance check; they don't affect the Jump DC. See, the nifty thing is that last sentence was basically the DMG's ruling, and won't change from session to session. I like that kind of game.

And, as I've said, most of the conditions you use in your example have rules that relate to them. The DM can simply lay out the conditions and I will know almost exactly what rules apply. I don't have to wait for him to say: "So... you'll need to... make a DC35 Str check." Not to metion deal with the same situation being handled by differently next session.



			
				scadgrad said:
			
		

> C&C just does away w/ the complexity of the current skill system.



But I like the "complexity".  I like having a page in the book that shows a baseline for what a Jump +10 can do. I don't like just knowing my PC is "good at Strength stuff", yet having no idea whether he can jump 2' or 10'. If that's the case, I don't see the point in tracking how good a jumper he is anyway.



			
				scadgrad said:
			
		

> For me, I'm perfectly comfortable with the fact that you and I can come up w/ what the difficulty of the aforementioned Brb jumping incident is (I'd say slightly difficult, but requiring as much Dex as Str and therefore you'd get both bonuses if you have them) and move on. In the 3.X example, the DM will have to apply some sort of modifier for using the table as a ramp won't he? Or is there a rule for that in 3.X that I've forgotten about?



He can declare it hindering terrain, or say it's like climbing, or require a balance check. I know that sounds like a lot of fiat, but at least those choices generally correspond to specific bonuses or DCs.



			
				scadgrad said:
			
		

> Well, that's not the case in C&C. Those numbers do mean something, you just fail to grasp how the system really works that's all. Not a slam, just evident, by your commentary.



Like I said, I don't pretend to be well versed in C&C. I'm simply using some details relayed to me about to make some points about what I do and don't like in a system, and when I think "lite" works and when I think it doesn't. I'm not trying to slam on C&C (though I feel confident that it is not the RPG for me).

Anyway...

Mearls main points seem to be that:

* "Lite" systems are often assumed to be inherrently more "mature" in terms of design; i.e., an ideal to be attained.

* Designers creating games buy into this, and thus strive for "lite".

* Said designers then often confuse "lite" with just "having less rules".

The end result then being the kind of "rules-insufficient" RPG that's really just a glorified die mechanic with some commentary attached, and not a "rules-sufficient" RPG that genuinely meets all the player's needs with a minimum of rules.

It'd be interesting to learn what RPGs were used in Dancey's testing. If they were any of the many "rules-insufficient" RPGs I've seen held up as great design, I have no doubt that game play was no more expedient than a heavier ruleset.


----------



## buzz

Shadowslayer said:
			
		

> ANyway, I have a favourite article, one of Monte Cooks older ones. Not sure entirely how relevant it is to the myriad of debates happening here...but its worth a read if ya havent already.
> 
> http://www.montecook.com/arch_anrant3.html
> 
> Have fun. ( with whatever game you prefer )



I remember that piece. Good stuff. Bonus points for Shadowslayer!


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> To get back to Ryan Dancey's point, for a moment if I may, we _do_ have more discussions about rulings in rules-heavy games, mainly because we don't exactly remember what all the rules are, especially subsets that aren't used very often.  We don't have discussions about the "arbitrariness" of rules-lite scenarios because 1) we don't argue anyway, so we'd all accept the GM's ruling without argument, and 2) we're all on the same page, so to speak, and we also don't argue with GM's rulings because they seem natural and intuitive to us as well--i.e., if _we_ were GMing that same situation, we'd handle it the same way.



I think this is the key point here.  I've sat through too many games where I felt miserable and had no fun at all due to GM incompatibility.

It has to do with times where I said "Ok, I fire an arrow at the enemy, I'll never hit, but I'll try" and getting back an answer like "Ok, you crit your friend because logically with that many friends between you and the target, you are much more likely to hit them than the enemy." and when I say "but, in the rules..." they yell at me for quoting rules to them.

It's when the GM's ruling seem unnatural and counterintuitive to the way I think.  Rolling a natural 20 hits the enemy, that's what it's about.  You don't roll a 90% chance of hitting your friends with the crit because there are more of them than the enemy.  I've tried many a move that I thought was perfectly logical: "I jump down on his head, since he is fighting someone else, he likely won't see me coming.  I should knock him down, given that I'm wearing full plate." only to be met with "you get impaled by his sword that was sticking up and die."

These kind of things make me not want to try anything in the game, because I know they are just going to be twisted into something else.  Why bother playing if what I decide to do is always going to turn out bad?  This sort of thing really annoys me, so all it takes is ONE disagreement in a session and I'm in a bad mood for the whole session.


----------



## der_kluge

scadgrad said:
			
		

> I fundamentally disagree that C&C Raw is Awful. It's just not something that you personally would enjoy playing and as we've said many times before, I think that really does boil down to personality types. I'm wondering what you'd make of something like CoC since it lacks feats, miniatures, a robust combat system, etc.? Just curious.




I don't care for games like CoC much since it seems like the only point is to see how violent your death can be. I don't like Paranoia for the same reason, since the only point there seems to be how many ways you can find to die in a span of a single game. I think my expectations of a game of D&D is probably fundamentally different than something like Vampire, CoC, or something more story-driven, with less violence. I also don't think such a game would hold my interest over a long-term.


And I have the same "boilerplate" beef with 3rd edition. Why do all gnomes speak with burrowing mammals?  Why do all dwarves have stone-cunning?  What if my gnome or dwarf grew up in a city, and weren't exposed to those things? Why can't I swap out those for something else that makes more sense?

I do find it odd that C&C chose to assign various abilities at differing levels for the classes. Aside from the monk, I don't remember there being a lot of different class abilities in the early edition of D&D. I don't know why they couldn't have gone with a more feat-like system. It certainly wouldn't have unbalanced their system, and it would have made character creation a lot more flexible.

And that's the thing I like - I want flexibility in character creation. I don't like being given things that I don't need, or don't want, or don't make any sense for my character background. Maybe my characters are just too weird, I don't know.


----------



## diaglo

fredramsey said:
			
		

> Knockback/Bull Rush.




they had rules for this in 1edADnD.

overbearing


you of all people should know them.


----------



## der_kluge

fredramsey said:
			
		

> I think sometimes people view those 1st Edtion days through too much of a nostalgia filter.




Uh-oh, there's the "n" word.  Now you're just asking for it!

Flame on!


----------



## diaglo

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> None of the combat for AD&D or Mentzer D&D (or the Rules Cyclopedia, with is Allston edited Mentzer D&D) requried the use of a battlemap.  A battlemap could be used a visual aid, but it wasn't in any way required.  Most of the time, I was able to make out basic positioning of combatants mentally on my DM map.  That is, movement and positioning in those games was not tactical.  Tactical combat didn't come to AD&D until the aptly named _Combat & Tactics_ rulebook.  Like the old _Swords & Spells_, it was completely optional.




nor is it required of the newer editions.

but that doesn't mean it wasn't covered in the rules.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard

diaglo said:
			
		

> nor is it required of the newer editions.
> 
> but that doesn't mean it wasn't covered in the rules.



 diaglo, are you okay? That almost sounds like you're defending 3e...


----------



## JohnSnow

Y'know, this thread is really entertaing when one just reads without posting (which I've been doing for about the last 2 pages - or since last night. :\



			
				scadgrad said:
			
		

> And the GM/CK/DM isn't just "making stuff up." There are standards by which those TNs can be easily arrived at.




There are?!?

Where?

No...I'm really curious. Where? For example, what is the "pick lock" TN for a good-quality lock? Cuz all I found in my C&C book was a handwavey "add X based on whether you feel a task is difficult, challenging, heroic or nearly impossible." Followed (or possibly preceded) by the comment about "level-appropriate challenges." 

The former, of course, is also in D&D (3.5 PHB, p. 64). But D&D then goes on to suggest one or two (maybe a few more...) examples that MIGHT be considered to suggest the types of tasks that hit those handwaved difficulty levels. If that guidance is not in C&C, then where is the novice CK supposed to find it? And if that guidance will be in the Castle Keeper's Guide, then the game isn't yet complete.

On another topic...



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> (Gygax was a master poet and designer, but had the organizational skills of a butterfly on crystal meth).




*chuckle* That's gotta go into a sig somewhere...

So how do you feel about reading High Gygaxian? (the language in which Gary writes rulebooks).


----------



## diaglo

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> diaglo, are you okay? That almost sounds like you're defending 3e...





i always defend 3edD&D.
Holmes revised was still a good game.


----------



## fredramsey

diaglo said:
			
		

> nor is it required of the newer editions.
> 
> but that doesn't mean it wasn't covered in the rules.




You know, you've managed to tire me out. And all it took you was to say the same thing, over and over and over again, with no proof.

Have you considered a job in talk radio? An interview show on Fox News? Because man, you're good.

/ for the sarcasm impaired

OD&D and everything that came after it was *centered* around the battle mat. And each round, characters agonized about where they moved next, and constantly moved around with their foes, using the incredibly robust tactical movement rules. Movement was more important that AC, in fact.

And all battlemats were drawn on using 1 square (inch) = 10', and if there was more than one person in that 10' space, the book told you to stack the minis on top of each other.

It has been the same since H.G. Wells wrote Little soldiers (whatever the heck it was called), and remains the same in 3.5 and on.

My god, my god, all those years, gone from my memory, I am left an empty shell, filled with only my hallucinations. I shall go now, and hang myself from a lightpole in my FLGS parking lot, with a note pinned to my chest, warning the world about the folly of trying to discuss facts with people on the internet.

That way, my death will have meaning.

Fred Wept.

Amen.

/off


----------



## Shadowslayer

Self edited for unecessary snarkiness. Sorry.


----------



## fredramsey

Shadowslayer said:
			
		

> Does that mean youre finished now?




As finished as anyone who has tried to "push a chain" can be.


----------



## der_kluge

I went to the link that Buzz posted in post #1 to Dancey's comments to Mearls' blog.  Here is his full reply:



			
				rsdancey said:
			
		

> In my experience, most "rules lite" game systems simply substitute written rules for ad hoc rules made on the spot as necessary by GMs.
> 
> There are two big problems with that shift:
> 
> 1) The GM has to be really good. Good enough to be an on the fly game designer. I'd call that person "extremely rare" and wouldn't try to base a business around their existence.
> 
> 2) Game experience is not portable. What you learn with one GM may be exactly the opposite of how the rules are applied when you switch GMs. This creates network inefficiencies. Network inefficencies are bad.
> 
> I observed (2-way mirror) several groups who were given "rules lite" RPG systems as a part of an effort to understand how they were used and if the "liteness" was actually delivering any utility value. Using a stopwatch, we found that consistently zero time was saved in character creation, or adjudicating disputes. In fact, in some games, disputes lasted substantially longer because the GM could not just point to a written rule in a book and call the argument closed.
> 
> 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.




I think on his first two points, he's right, but it kind of gets back to the definition of rules light and rules heavy.

I think the idea of a GM running rules ad hoc is more "rules insufficient" than rules light. But then, that begs the question, what exactly is "rules light"?

And by extension, is everythign really just rules light, and if you add more rules than is necessary, does that become rules heavy?

Should it be "regular" and "rules redundant" instead?


----------



## der_kluge

Scadgrad, I keep forgetting to ask, but I'd like to borrow that extra C&C PHB that you have. I'd like to try to read it over the weekend.


----------



## diaglo

Shadowslayer said:
			
		

> Does that mean youre finished now?




stick a fork in him. he's done.


----------



## Silverleaf

diaglo said:
			
		

> stick a fork in him. he's done.




Finally an opportunity to use the Military Fork/Bec de Corbin/Ranseur polearm thingamajig in the 1e DMG...


----------



## buzz

der_kluge said:
			
		

> And by extension, is everythign really just rules light, and if you add more rules than is necessary, does that become rules heavy?



I"m trying to imagine how one could add "more rules than necessary". Would those be rules that were redundant, e.g., a second set of grappling rules? Or is "necessary" just a synonym for "taste"? I mean, the detailed rules for vehicles in HERO's _The Ultimate Vehicle_ aren't necessary per se, but someone who wanted more detail than was in the core book might find them rewarding (and, thus, necessary to their having fun).

Or is "necessary" possibly a design issue? E.g., "this rule subset for blah was unnecessary becasue there's already a mechanic that could be used to handle blah." Or is that just good/bad design?


----------



## fanboy2000

Well, adding lot's of trivial house rules might qualify as "more rules than necessary." At least, in my book.


----------



## Akrasia

Psion said:
			
		

> I think John lays it on pretty thick in the unsupported assertion department:
> 
> ...
> 
> I'm wondering what statitistical study he drew this from.
> 
> Rollyeyes icon, how I miss you...




Actually, that comment was based on claims made by *Mearls*.


----------



## Akrasia

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> You have some "odd" views on D&D/d20 and I think you have moved beyond your burnout with 3e to active hatred of the system.  You have been parroting the same comments for so long that most of your posts seem like deja vu.




WTF?  What are you talking about?  :\



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> ... D&D can be hard to run, but not nearly as difficult as you make it.  If you have a lot of rules monkeys in a group, then the game is a nightmare, but otherwise fairly easy to run.  ...




I have no idea *why* you are stating this -- it has *nothing* to do with the comments that you quoted.

In any case, I never claimed that 3e D&D was uber-difficult.  I've run two 3e campaigns now, and I don't think it is my cup of tea; I find other systems much more enjoyable and easier to GM.  What is your problem with that?



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> I really think you should take a break from the d20 hatred for a while.




I have no idea what you're going on about here.  Feel free to respond to the *content* of my posts.  Empty comments like this one are pointless.


----------



## eyebeams

I'll repeat what I said in the first place: Rules heavy games are for gamers. Rules light games are for gamers who are friends.

To elaborate, this means that rules light games suit groups with a particular set of social competencies. I'll name a few:

1) The ability to transfer social status within the group.

2) The ability to refrain from actions that would block an constructive result.

3) The ability to reach rapid consensus decisions.

4) The ability to trust the altruistic intent of other players.

5) The ability to deconstruct a session to its function from a position outside of play.

6) Reflexive constructive self-criticism

There are many other hobbies and professions where participants realize that these are not innate capabilities and that there are ways to develop them. Rules light games have almost always failed by refusing to talk about this except in very indirect language. For example, problems from disruptive in-character play are blocking problems that have set resolution techniques in dramatic craft, but to talk about them frankly would be saying many things a  vocal minority of gamers don't want to hear.

Rules heavy games do not require these competencies to the same degree. They need a different set of skills. To pick a few out of the air:

1) Forethought with resource allocation (money, caracter points, feats, etc).

2) Strategic thinking (defined here as the ability to find the optimal solution among many for a particular problem).

3) Collective resource management.

4) Protection from the gambler's fallacy.

5) On-the fly calculation.

I suspect that rules light gaming really started eith people who weren't strong with rules-heavy skills but reflexively understood the requirements of rules-light games. But again -- getting folks to admit that is a problem. 

The real question, then, is, does your group prefer on skillset or the other? The rules heavy approch has the advantage of not requiring as much trust, but remember that there are no absolutes. The existence of GM's fiat undermines any appraoch based on pure decision theory between other participants. For instance, the Prisoner's Dilemma in an RPG has the additional variable of the GM being able to re-weigh the options.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

Wow, eyebeams, those are really intresting points. I disagree as to where rules-light games came from, though; I'd more argue that it should also include people who preferred a different focus. I think these competencies also reflect interests. Lots of people play roleplaying games without an emphasis on strategic thinking. 

What I think is really interesting is the idea that rules-heavy games don't have the social requirements of rules-light games. Honestly, I read those points as being necessary to some level for people to go bowling or have a dinner party. I mean, things like trusting each other's creative input? I'm trying to parse how that's not a requirement for any roleplaying game. 

Still, I think your points are interesting, and merit discussion.


----------



## Akrasia

Psion said:
			
		

> ... You know, I like True20, but there is one thing I don't like about it, and it gives the lie to the notion that it allows "as much (customization) as 3e": the "all skills are maxed out" simplification.
> 
> Don't get me wrong; it's a simplification that I have used myself when churning out NPCs and when teaching my daughter d20. But it does make the characters more "chunky".




OTOH, True 20 "roles" are a lot more flexible than 3e classes.  So while True20 might lose some flexibility in terms of skills (though it would be a snap to reintroduce skill points), it gains flexibility in terms of the options available to each role.


----------



## Desdichado

eyebeams is the winner!

Seriously, great post!  I can see aspects of both of those categories in us, though--a group of folks that largely prefers d20, but plays it in a somewhat rules lite playstyle.  Your analysis rings true for me.


----------



## Andre

der_kluge said:
			
		

> I think the idea of a GM running rules ad hoc is more "rules insufficient" than rules light. But then, that begs the question, what exactly is "rules light"?
> 
> And by extension, is everythign really just rules light, and if you add more rules than is necessary, does that become rules heavy?
> 
> Should it be "regular" and "rules redundant" instead?




Well, keep in mind that RL and RH are simply points on a continuum, and each individual has a different tolerance for detail. When people call a particular system RH, I think they are almost always referring to the level of detail and, perhaps, simple page count. "Hmm, this system has a core book that's 96 pages, so it's lite, but that system has 128 pages, so it's heavy..." Rules-insufficient, OTOH, is a term that can be applied to any system, regardless of size.

What drives systems to become RH is the desire for mechanisms that deliver *satisfying* results. As someone (you?) mentioned much earlier in this thread, flipping a coin to determine the outcome of a challenge is the ultimate RL system. The problem is, it's not a whole lot of fun. So we add rules to better define the challenges and what we, as players can do to overcome them. We add rules to assist suspension of disbelief. We add rules to limit the power gamers and encourage actual roleplaying. We add rules to limit the damage bad GM's can do. And when the day is done, we oftentimes end up with a system that's pretty heavy - because we want a satisfying game. 

Of course, defining a satsifying gaming experience varies from group to group, so no one system will appeal to everyone. For most players, I would suggest "winning" is critical, be it rescuing the princess, saving the village, stopping Dr. Doom, or solving the impossible puzzle. But other elements are important, e.g., the social aspects of spending time with friends in a common activity. Does the group enjoy combat? Then they'll prefer a system that highlights combat. And so on.

But there's no question that a system that gets in the way of the satisfying game experience will be criticized. A RL system is criticized because the player doesn't like the "arbitrary" nature of the rules. A RH system is criticized because it's too much work to use all those detailed rules. What every critic is saying is simply: this system has flaws that affect my fun. Now we're back to what Mearls was referring to about the game interface. Which, IMO, is a much more helpful way to evaluate a system, rather than focusing on page count or rules detail (or lack thereof).


----------



## John Morrow

Ourph said:
			
		

> The rules (as far as D&D goes) specifically tell a DM to apply modifiers he deems are appropriate.  The DM decides which of the codified ones to use and whether to add any non-codified ones.  Those *ARE* the RAW.  So the DM and players still need to share a common "assessment of reality" for things to click.




And you keep missing the point that the option to use codified ones is not present in many rule-light games.  Please bear in mind that I am not simply talking about D&D vs. C&C here but also Hero vs. Fudge, etc. and I personally have my doubts about whether C&C is rule-light from what I've seen of it.  It's not simply DCs but little things like falling damage.  D&D and Hero have rules for how much damage a character takes if they fall a given distance.  Fudge purposely has no falling damage rules.  In Fudge, there is no codified system to start with or modify.  The GM is left to just make it up.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> When that happens, it doesn't matter whether the codified modifiers are there or not.  A rules-lite game where the DM and players share a similar "assessment of reality" is not noticeably different to the participants than a rules-heavy game.




Absolutely.  And I'll happily suggest that groups that share a similar "assessment of reality" give rule-light (or even nearly rule-free) games a try.  They work wonderfully.  But that's only a fraction of the role-playing hobby and market.  I'm not claiming that rule-light games can't work.  That would be pretty foolish since I've played plenty of them and introduced Fudge to my group.  I'm also not saying that they don't solve some problems that rule-heavy games have.  I'm simply saying that the introduce some of their own problems -- problems that all those rules are there to avoid.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> If you approach it from the perspective of asking the DM "I would like to do X, what are my chances of success?" then the two are not noticeably different.




The point you are missing is that when I play the Hero System or d20 D&D, I almost never have to ask the GM a question like that because I can figure it out myself while the GM is doing something else.  Remember, I'm speaking from the experience of playing both kinds of games here, with more than one group.  This isn't theory.  Perhaps your milage varies but, yeah, I can notice the difference between having to ask the GM a lot of questions and being able to figure things out on my own.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> You're putting words in my mouth that are going to obfuscate the argument.  I'm not using D&D as an example based on running it rules-lite.




No.  But you are using examples of D&D play that are as close as possible to rule-light play to claim that there aren't differences while downplaying the situations where they are very different.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> I'm saying that both rules-lite and rules-heavy systems require DM judgement calls at some level.




Yes, and it's the level and frequency of those judgement calls that make all the difference.  On the one hand, it takes much more time to use codified rules, especially if you have to look them up, than for the GM to make a decision by fiat.  On the other hand, the GM's fiat decisions are not nearly as predictable and consistent as the codified rules.  It's possible to resolve many situations in rule-heavy games with few or even no judgement calls on the part of a GM.  That's simply not possible in most rule-light situations.  And dwelling on the elements of a rule-heavy game that do rely on a GM's judgement calls is not going to change that difference.  Basically, you are talking about the elements of D&D that can be used like C&C and now how they can be used differently than C&C.

You are also skipping over other differences like feats and criticals which, oddly enough, a lot of people using C&C seem to want to import from D&D.  Why is that?



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> D&D and C&C both require them, but they tend to occur at different systemic levels.  I'm not asserting that the two systems are similar, I'm saying that the differences in the systems don't really seem (to me) to make a difference in the level of DM judgement necessary to arrive at a ruling in most cases.




Perhaps that's because you play D&D differently than the groups I've role-played with do.  Or perhaps, as I suspect, C&C isn't really what I'd consider "rule-light".  But comparing d20 D&D or Hero (unarguably rule-heavy) to Fudge or "high rolls are good" (unarguably rule-light), the level of GM judgement necessary to arrive at a ruling and the amount of subjectivity involved is substantial and impossible to ignore.  Remember, I'm speaking from experience as a person who actually prefers rule-light games much of the time.  



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> See, I don't understand why this is the base-line assumption.  The GM in a rules-lite game is just as capable of setting up a situation with pre-determined conditions and sticking to them throughout the encounter as the GM in a rules-heavy game.




Yes, but what it means to try to trip someone, tumble through their space, or knock their weapon out of their hand will be defined in many rule-heavy games but not many rule-light games.  Where objective rules cover all of those situations in a rule-heavy game, subjective GM assessments must step in when there aren't rules. 



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> I maintain that anyone who runs D&D in a consistent and fair manner, with good judgement is also capable of and likely to run C&C in exactly the same way.




The word "fair" is so subjective as to be useless.  Take a good look at various threads here asking whether a DM did something "fair" or not and the number of people who come down on both sides.  That's a big part of the problem that rules solve.  It's a lot easier to question whether a subjective ruling is "fair" or not than it is to question a set of published rules that are available to everyone to review and clearly aren't based on personal issues.  

But I do understand your point.  Can some GMs run a good C&C game that feels very much like a D&D game for certain groups?  Of course.  But that's looking at a best case scenario.  What's the worst case scenario?



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> The only real differences I see are that 1 - the rules-lite system lets the player know from the start that communicating with the DM is an important aspect of knowing all the relevant details; and 2 - some players feel safer when DM judgement calls are hidden behind a layer of codified rules (i.e. - when the DM makes judgements about what codified modifiers apply or don't apply, rather than simply making judgements about what the overall modifier is).




What you are ignoring is that rule-light games don't simply make talking to the GM to know all the relevant details important -- they make it necessary in a way that it isn't in many rule-heavy situations.  You make it sound like communicating with the GM is a plus.  It's often not.  The GM's time is limited and the GM quickly becomes a speed bottleneck if they have to spend too much time explaining all the "relevant details" to allow players to make even simple choices.  That's not theory.  That's a real problem that I've encountered, both as GM and player. 

Second, it has nothing to do with "hiding" anything.  Over half the players in my group also GM, both rule-light and rule-heavy games.  We all know what a GM does.  It has to do with how the modifiers are determined and whether the players have access to how a situation will be resolved or not.  Perhaps you play with GMs who like to fiddle with a lot of subjective situational modifiers.  I don't.  If you play with GMs who strongly prefer to use their personal subjective assessment of the difficulty rather than just pick the closest codified modifier, it doesn't surprise me that C&C appeals to you and your group because it's closer to what you want to do.  

It really does sound to me like you don't want to just use the codified modifiers and really want the GM to set their own modifiers.  If that's the case, of course C&C appeals to you.  Yes, the RAW says that the GM can set whatever modifier they want.  That's because the RAW tries to be all things to all people (and, yes, I can point you to a Ryan Dancey essay that explains how and why).  When my group switches from a rule-light game (where the GM subjectively picks the difficulty) to a rule-heavy game (where the modifiers are codified), we do so specifically because we are looking for codified modifiers.  And, yeah, codified modifiers are pretty useless if you ignore them and just let the GM make up their own numbers most of the time.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> This isn't what I'm talking about.  D&D without fudging and by the RAW still requires as much DM adjudication as a rules-lite game, it just occurs on a different level in D&D.




My experience, not only with D&D but Hero and other heavy systems, says otherwise.  You seem to assume that the GM will fiddle with the modifiers and difficulty equally in either system.  In my experience, that's not the case.  If you play D&D with DMs who prefer to set their own difficulties and modifiers rather than using the stock modifiers codified in the book, it really doesn't surprise me that you prefer C&C because those codified difficulties and modifiers are only going to get in the way if you don't actually use them.

In fact, that's my observation with most rule-light advocates all the way down to Fudge and Risus.  If the GM feels that they subjectively know what a modifier or difficulty should be (or even how a scene should turn out), they are at best going to consider codified rules that are close to their subjective assessment useless and at worst going to resent codified rules that disagree with their subjective assessement.  If you don't need a rule, by all means cut it out.  People are amazed when I tell them that we run fast combat in Hero.  How do we do it?  We rip stuff out that we don't need that slows the combat down.  But that doesn't mean that the complexity or codified rules are useless for everyone.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> What you're talking about is the group coming to a consensus about what the norm is for their game.  Which is exactly my point.  This process occurs both in rules-heavy (we accept that it's the norm that the modifiers in the books are the only ones that will apply) and in rules-lite systems (we come to expect a certain range of target numbers for the tasks we perform) for every group.




Yes, but in D&D, the process can occur simply by reading the rulebook.  In a rule-light game, it requires experience in play.  Given that C&C is so close to D&D, it doesn't surprise me that they feel the same because many C&C GMs have played D&D and have probably internalized the D&D values, as have their players who are familiar with D&D.  I'm not limiting my observations to D&D or C&C.  I'm talking about Hero, Warhammer FRP, Fudge, OTE, Risus, etc.  And how might C&C run for a group with a GM that had never played D&D before?



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> The D&D RAW don't require that the DC modifiers in the books be the only ones applied.  If that's the way the DM chooses to approach the game it is just as much a judgement call as a CK setting a TN based on the suggestions in the rulebook and his own personal interpretation of what modifiers the situational factors contribute.




You keep focusing on what the RAW requires.  My focus is on how I've actually seen it used in practice.  Perhaps there are DMs who like to fiddle with all the DCs and modifiers so that the final value is always subjective.  I've never seen it played that way.  Not with my group.  Not with another group I play with (this is the first thing I've ever played with them).  Not when I playtested some future Goodman Games adventures.  The GMs all pretty much use the codified modifiers when they apply.  And regardless of how a GM can use the RAW, a rule-light GM can't default to codified rules, modifiers, and difficulties.  They are required to make a subjective ruling.

Step back from C&C because I'm not even sure I'd call that a rule-light game.  Try a game of Fudge Fantasy or Risus, which will more clearly illustrate the point.  Your focus seems to be on DCs and modifiers.  I'm also talking well beyond that.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> That's just not true.  C&C provides a baseline for all checks (12 or 18).  What it doesn't do is provide codified modifiers to that baseline.  However, that doesn't negate the need for or prevent the formulation of consensus amongst the group as to what those modifiers should be.




If it had codified modifiers for that baseline, you wouldn't need the formulation of consensus amongst the group as to what those modifiers should be.  You can look them up and apply them.  And, again, I'm not reading "rule-light" as just "C&C".



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> And I've seen different DMs running 3e D&D assign different situational modifiers to the same task, resulting in wildly different DCs.  Both were playing by the rules, they were simply using their personal judgement to determine which modifiers did and did not apply.




And, yes, those cases are probably very similar to C&C.  It's not a matter of playing by the rules but how you use the rules and how you _can_ use the rules.  Personally, I don't see the point of using a rule-heavy game if you aren't going to use the codified rules in a reasonably objective way.  If you want a lot of the situations to rely on the GM's subjective assessment of the situation, then by all means go rule-light. 



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Exactly, and given that the D&D RAW put the DM in the position of arbitrating which situational modifiers do and do not apply in a large number of circumstances, the game has just as much of a reuqirement for consensus as a rules-lite system would.




That the D&D RAW allows the DM to introduce subjective situational modifiers into the task resolution process does not mean that the D&D RAW requires that the DM do so, nor does it mean that all DMs do.  If the DM wants to be subjective then they could certainly use C&C or an even lighter system and get similar results.  That's not the point.  The point is that the rule-light GM can't lean on objective rules and codified modifiers and difficulties that don't exist in a lighter rule system.  You seem to think those objective rules and codified modifiers and difficulties should be largely altered or ignored.  I don't.  If you do ignore them then it does make sense not to bother with them in the first place.  But your premise, that they should be largely altered or ignored, is not universally desirable because it creates its own problems.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> I would expect someone who wanted to be consistent and predictable to be so when running C&C with no other RPG experience.  I would also expect someone who did not want or did not care about being consistent and predictable to fail to be those things when running D&D with no other RPG experience.




Have you ever tried a really rule-light game like Fudge, Risus, or Over the Edge?

The reason why there are dice in role-playing games is to simulate the fact that what a person (character) wants to do does not always determine how well they actually do it.  A GM may very much want to be consistent, predictable, and fair, but it doesn't always turn out that way.  YMMV.


----------



## John Morrow

Silverleaf said:
			
		

> And while there were plenty of fights, much time was spent in non-combat situations (mysteries, sneaking around, exploring, outsmarting, convincing, or just plain old chit-chat).




I don't think that's so much a function of how heavy the system is.  The one D&D 3.5 game that I'm playing in right now, we're still 4th level (starting at 2nd) after about 15 sessions because it's been largely mysteries, sneaking around, exploring, outsmarting, convincing, etc.  I think it's a play style issue, a point that Ryan Dancey raises in the other thread that he started.


----------



## John Morrow

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> See, that makes me understand the argument. My priorities are different, so I don't agree with it, but I understand it. I'm happy.




There are plenty of different reasons to role-play, which is why I've called this a collection of similar hobbies with a lot of overlap.



			
				SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> It seems this kind of play emphasizes consistency for two reasons:
> 
> - Impartiality, because the game is about overcoming challenges, and to feel that the accomplishment of overcoming them is earned, they should be consistent.
> 
> - Plausibility, because we're imagining this invented world, and it should be pre-planned so as to give the feel that it's a living place that would still exist if the PC's weren't there.
> 
> Can anybody help me out as to whether those are common objectives that rules-heavy people would want to strive for?




For the record, the second if very important to me because of my style of play.  The first reason is quite a bit less important to me, but still matters to me.



			
				SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> For instance, there's absolutely no focus on mechanically balanced, objective challenges at all in our games. We have difficulties to overcome, but typically challenges are there for us to force characters to make meaningful choices. (Believe me, it's not just telling stories around a campfire. Characters face adversity, and a player can't just make the story come out how they want to.)




That's the sort of game that I don't really like because I look at a game through my character's eyes and such games feel like being a part of The Truman Show to me.  But if that's what your groups wants, more power to you.



			
				SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> I know people think that's hippy-dippy, and not roleplaying, but it works for us. Amusingly enough, I'm considered the "rules-heavy" guy in my game. That's because the co-GM would rather use a system that is a page long, and I'm lobbying to extend it to five pages.




I've played in one-shot games where the only rule was "high rolls are good, low rolls are bad".  The reason that works for me for one-shots but not campaigns is that the importance of consistency (allong with the difficulty of maintaining it) increases as the length and complexity of the game increases.


----------



## John Morrow

Ourph said:
			
		

> I always give my new players some variation of this speech before we start playing:




I think that helps a great deal.  Let me simply say this.  If you don't think a player can't bog a game down asking questions as much as they can bog the game down looking up rules, you've never had someone like me as a player.


----------



## John Morrow

scadgrad said:
			
		

> Well, I'd certainly hope so. It's there in black and white in the C&C PHB. While tumbling past isn't covered by the rules, the DC certainly is. It's whatever the creature's HD is added to either 12/18 depending on the PC's Prime. Of course the DM/CK can add more levels of difficulty, but you can pretty much do that in any RPG.




Well, that's not really more rule-light than D&D 3e, is it?


----------



## John Morrow

Mallus said:
			
		

> While that's true, consider that every NPC in the game chooses to act, essentially, by GM fiat. So that leaves a huge portion of the game in a kind of mechanics-free space that relies on a GM's judgement, rather than on any codified system of task resolution (and on an open line of communication between players and GM).




It also removes a huge portion of the game from reliance on a GM's judgement.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> To varying degrees the rules system can describe what a GM _can_ do with NPC's (or any form of obstacle/encounter), but not _what_ they do. And in that there's no escaping a reliance on the GM's subjective judgement calls.




The degree of subjectivity matters.  It's not a matter of escaping subjectivity entirely but reducing or limiting.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> In light of that, quibbling about an extra +2 circumstance bonus applied to a Jump check seems, well, to miss the point.




I'm not talking about quibbling about an extra +2 circumstance bonus.  I'm talking about whether a 40 foot fall should leave a character largely unharmed, badly wounded, or dead.  If a system has no falling rules, the GM's assessment covers that entire range of options which is quite a bit larger than a +2 circumstance bonus, correct?



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to be difficult, but can you suggest another way for GM's to assess things, other then subjectively? I'm not a robot or an algorithm. While I try for a degree of objectivity, I have to be honest with myself and admit I fall pretty short. I'm only human.




Often, yes.  Nobody expects perfection.  But the reason why complex rules are usually complex is because they have specific procedures for handling specific situational conditions.  Applying them can be entirely objective to the point where two players could run a combat between their PCs without any GM judgement calls in some cases.  In many ways, the Internet is the land of the excluded middle argument -- all or nothing.  But in this situation, degrees matter.  Both objectivity and subjectivity have costs and create problems.  Where you set the bar along that scale will determine what problems and benefits you get.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> I don't accept that. Most of what you list aren't problems (level-appropriate challenges?? rewards for creativity?!) unless taken to an extreme. And even a GM who limits their assessment to 'the setting and the situation' are making subjective judgements. How can they not be? How did they obtain an objective frame of reference?




It all depends on why your role-play.  All of those things were real enough problems that they've ruined games for the people that cited them.  In most people's book, things that ruin the enjoyment of the participants are generally considered "problems".  As for basing assessments only on the situation and setting, that's what dice are for and even if the decision is otherwise subjective, the feel of a GMs subjective decisions will vary greatly depending on the factors that they base that subjetive decision on.


----------



## Silverleaf

John Morrow said:
			
		

> I don't think that's so much a function of how heavy the system is.  The one D&D 3.5 game that I'm playing in right now, we're still 4th level (starting at 2nd) after about 15 sessions because it's been largely mysteries, sneaking around, exploring, outsmarting, convincing, etc.  I think it's a play style issue, a point that Ryan Dancey raises in the other thread that he started.




That goes without saying.  I've played in crunchy games where we did a lot of that stuff, because such was the nature of the campaign.
I only brought up those points to explain that even though we were new at gaming, and had no mentors, and the (light) rules we used didn't dwell too much on non-combat resolution (no skill system), we still naturally gravitated to sessions with lots of "roleplaying" situations instead of just pure hack & slash.


----------



## John Morrow

eyebeams said:
			
		

> To elaborate, this means that rules light games suit groups with a particular set of social competencies. I'll name a few:
> 
> 1) The ability to transfer social status within the group.
> 
> 2) The ability to refrain from actions that would block an constructive result.
> 
> 3) The ability to reach rapid consensus decisions.
> 
> 4) The ability to trust the altruistic intent of other players.
> 
> 5) The ability to deconstruct a session to its function from a position outside of play.
> 
> 6) Reflexive constructive self-criticism




My group meets all of those criteria(*), yet we still have problems with rule-light games and gravitate toward at least rule-moderate games.  They key element that's missing (and I'm talking about a group that's role-played with each other for years and, in some cases, well over a decade) is often a common understanding of how things are working in the game setting.  The rules serve as a sort of "common reality" for the group that we can all depend on.  

(*) With respect to "blocking", we all tend to be "simulationists" and are all willing to live with the consequences of appropriate in character actions even if they don't follow story logic.  So that's more of a non-issue.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> There are many other hobbies and professions where participants realize that these are not innate capabilities and that there are ways to develop them. Rules light games have almost always failed by refusing to talk about this except in very indirect language. For example, problems from disruptive in-character play are blocking problems that have set resolution techniques in dramatic craft, but to talk about them frankly would be saying many things a vocal minority of gamers don't want to hear.




I think the problem is often more fundamental than that.  I think the problem is that many rule-light games don't tell you how to actually use the system.  "Just make it up!" or "Just use your best guess!" doesn't really help someone who doesn't know where to start.



			
				eyebeams said:
			
		

> I suspect that rules light gaming really started eith people who weren't strong with rules-heavy skills but reflexively understood the requirements of rules-light games. But again -- getting folks to admit that is a problem.




Again, I think the issue is even more basic.  A person who knows how to figure out what happens doesn't need rules.  A person who knows what they want to have happen next doesn't need dice.  Worse, if a person knows how to resolve a situation or what should happen, the rules or dice will only either confirm what they already know or give them the wrong result that they'll want to fudge around.  I think a lot of the advocacy for rule-light systems or diceless play comes from GMs and players who think they can do a better job than the rules of deciding what happens in the game.

In fact, that's why I think that rule-light advocates often resent complex rules rather than simply being indifferent to them or finding them too complicated.  They resent the rules because the rules are worse than what they can do themselves.


----------



## Ourph

Write a novel why don't you!   



			
				John Morrow said:
			
		

> Absolutely.  And I'll happily suggest that groups that share a similar "assessment of reality" give rule-light (or even nearly rule-free) games a try.  They work wonderfully.  But that's only a fraction of the role-playing hobby and market.  I'm not claiming that rule-light games can't work.  That would be pretty foolish since I've played plenty of them and introduced Fudge to my group.  I'm also not saying that they don't solve some problems that rule-heavy games have.  I'm simply saying that the introduce some of their own problems -- problems that all those rules are there to avoid.




OK.  This is the problem with starting a discussion with one poster (in this case 2, Buzz and Psion) and continuing it with someone else 5 pages later.  I think we've gotten off track here, because you've placed me as defending positions I never took and don't agree with.

I am NOT:

1 - Defending rules-lite games as "better" than rules-heavy.
2 - Defending C&C or any other game as better than D&D.
3 - Saying that rules-lite games provide just as much structure or pre-existing guidelines as rules-heavy games.
4 - Saying that rules-lite games do not have their own problems, especially including that they are unmitigated disasters when the group playing them doesn't have some consensus about what to expect in terms of task resolution.

I AM:
1 - Defending my original thesis. Namely, that rules-heavy games ALSO require (to virtually the same degree as rules-lite games) that the group share a similar "assessment of reality" (let's call it AOR)or the game will suffer.  With the addendum that rules-heavy games sometimes offer a bit of psychological comfort by either hiding differences in "AOR" or in some cases, exposing them very quickly.



> I can notice the difference between having to ask the GM a lot of questions and being able to figure things out on my own.




Do the "answers" you come up with always coincide with the GM's rulings?  If so, is that because you're playing a rules-heavy game or because you and your GM share a similar AOR?  I would argue that, no matter what game you were playing, if you and your GM didn't share a common AOR you wouldn't feel comfortable figuring things out on your own.



> No.  But you are using examples of D&D play that are as close as possible to rule-light play to claim that there aren't differences while downplaying the situations where they are very different.




Maybe this is just a case of our POV differing to the extent we really can't understand each other.  I don't view the DM saying..."It's a 10ft pit, there's mud around it, so players move at 1/2 speed and running isn't possible (therefore no running start, double the DC of Jump checks), there's a really strong updraft, so that adds a circumstance bonus to the Jump check....so the final DC is _X_"...as playing D&D rules-lite.  I see it as the DM doing what the rulebooks instruct him to do - apply circumstance modifiers when appropriate.  Maybe we just disagree on the definition of "appropriate" in this context.



> Yes, and it's the level and frequency of those judgement calls that make all the difference.




Again, we're off track.  I'm not commenting on the level and frequency of judgement calls, I'm questioning the assertions of two other posters who said they preferred rules-heavy games (especially D&D) because when playing them, the GM doesn't have to make judgement calls because the rules tell him what to do.  My counter to that is that every time the GM applies or doesn't apply a modifier based on his interpretation of the environment in which the PC finds himself, he's making the same kind of judgement call that seems to be so distasteful in examples of rules-lite play.  The only difference I can see is that the judgement calls take place on another level, hidden behind a veneer of rules.




> You are also skipping over other differences like feats and criticals which, oddly enough, a lot of people using C&C seem to want to import from D&D.  Why is that?




There are a lot of comments like this in the rest of your post.  Ones that would put me in the position of defending rules-lite or C&C vs. rules-heavy or D&D (or whatever other games are being used as examples).  Please don't be offended that I'm going to skip over them and not answer/respond.  I'm not ducking the question, I just don't want to take the position of defending those things because I don't believe in them.  I'm asserting the statement I listed above, nothing more.



> But comparing d20 D&D or Hero (unarguably rule-heavy) to Fudge or "high rolls are good" (unarguably rule-light), the level of GM judgement necessary to arrive at a ruling and the amount of subjectivity involved is substantial and impossible to ignore.




Right.  I agree.  Back to my original point....If D&D requires a DM to make some subjective judgement calls and you, as a player, are comfortable with the way your DM handles himself in those situations - why would it make you uncomfortable to expand the instances when those judgement calls are necessary?  From my POV, a player will either trust or not trust the GM and if he trusts (usually because of a shared AOR and/or good dialogue between the player and GM) then the move to rules-lite shouldn't be a problem.  Buzz and Psion seemed to be (I won't put words in their mouths, but this is the impression I got) saying not that D&D requires fewer instances of the DM making subjective judgement calls, but actually provided a ruleset in which the DM needed to make no subjective judgement calls at all and consequently playing 3e D&D by the RAW makes a shared AOR and dialogue irrelevant.  That is the idea that I'm taking issue with.



> Yes, but what it means to try to trip someone, tumble through their space, or knock their weapon out of their hand will be defined in many rule-heavy games but not many rule-light games.  Where objective rules cover all of those situations in a rule-heavy game, subjective GM assessments must step in when there aren't rules.




This is where these discussions usually diverge.  I disagree that rules-lite absolutely necessitates that the game be rules-insufficient.  The difference between a rules-heavy game would be that tripping, tumbling past, disarming, wrestling, pushing someone around, etc. might all share the same dice roll mechanic, but would get vastly different modifiers for the same pair of combatants, would have numerous special rules that apply for each action, would interact with other combat actions or aspects of the game (feats frex.) in different ways, etc.  Whereas, in a rules-lite game, all of those situations would be covered in the rules, all would have clearly defined consequences, but since all are essentially combat actions that produce the effect of "doing something to your opponent he doesn't want you to do" they would all use the same roll, with the same modifier (or with only one of a very few modifiers based perhaps on whether the action is based on raw strength, raw agility or training) and that roll would be the same as the normal combat roll (since dealing damage to your opponent also qualifies as "doing something to your opponent he doesn't want you to do").  This is NOT something C&C does - which is one of the reasons I don't like it, refuse to defend it and find it a convenient but in some ways unfortunate example of a rules-lite game to use in this discussion. 



> But I do understand your point.  Can some GMs run a good C&C game that feels very much like a D&D game for certain groups?  Of course.  But that's looking at a best case scenario.  What's the worst case scenario?




Flip that around and you have exactly the same question I put to Psion and Buzz.  Sure some GMs can run a good game of D&D with the players feeling comfortable that their AOR and the GM's are essentially the same, but that's looking at a best case scenario (i.e - players and a GM whose AOR are already similar enough that they probably wouldn't run into problems playing a rules-lite game either).  What's the worst case scenario?  Does D&D really produce a noticeably better outcome when you're playing with a DM whose AOR significantly differs from your own?



> What you are ignoring is that rule-light games don't simply make talking to the GM to know all the relevant details important -- they make it necessary in a way that it isn't in many rule-heavy situations.




Again, I'm going to say that you're putting the best-case spin on the rules-heavy game and the worst-case spin on the rules-lite game.  If the rules-lite players all share a common AOR with their GM the amount of necessary communication isn't all that great.  If the rules-heavy players all have a completely different AOR than their GM, the amount of necessary communication shouldn't be (IMO) significantly different than the same group playing a rules-lite game.  Players in the rules-heavy game might think they are safe figuring out things like DCs on their own, but will their assessment match the assessment of the GM often enough that they become comfortable doing it?



> If you play with GMs who strongly prefer to use their personal subjective assessment of the difficulty rather than just pick the closest codified modifier, it doesn't surprise me that C&C appeals to you and your group because it's closer to what you want to do.




I play with people who all share a very similar AOR when it comes to RPGs, so it rarely matters how heavy or lite our rulesets are.  For the record, I've never played (and have no desire to play) C&C - which (although unquestionably rules-liter than D&D) isn't IMO a particularly well done example of a rules-lite game.  I'm familiar enough with the rules in terms of how skill-like activities are handled to use it as an example in comparison to 3e D&D - that's about it. 



> You seem to assume that the GM will fiddle with the modifiers and difficulty equally in either system.  In my experience, that's not the case.




Again, is this because of the ruleset or because of the DM's personality and the commonly arrived at consensus of the group about what's expected and wanted from the game?



> those codified difficulties and modifiers are only going to get in the way if you don't actually use them.




For the record, when I ran 3.x D&D I tended to use all the codified modifiers plus any other modifiers that seemed reasonable.  I would say 80% of the time, the written modifiers were the only things I used, but on certain occasions when I had included specific world details I thought should be represented numerically in play, I felt no compunction in applying circumstance modifiers.  Personally, I don't see that as running the game rules-lite (since I was actually using all of the rules at the time).



> Yes, but in D&D, the process can occur simply by reading the rulebook.  In a rule-light game, it requires experience in play.




I would argue against this.  Most new people who entered my games of D&D took time to adjust to the shared AOR of the group just as they would in a rules-lite game.  Hence my assertion that, while the numerous rules tend to give the illusion that you can have a certain level of expectation when you game at a new table, it's really only an illusion.  I played by the RAW, but my creation, as DM, of the game world (a completely subjective activity) affected the in-game reality to such an extent that rules knowledge didn't translate to an automatically shared AOR.  That takes interaction, communication and consensus - activities I would argue occur in every successful RPG group and the lack of which are the main cause of most unhappy, unsuccessful RPG group.



> Step back from C&C because I'm not even sure I'd call that a rule-light game.  Try a game of Fudge Fantasy or Risus, which will more clearly illustrate the point.  Your focus seems to be on DCs and modifiers.  I'm also talking well beyond that.




OK, let's talk about really rules-lite for a moment and compare OD&D (3 LB only) and 3e.  In an OD&D game, numerous activities a gaming group might want to engage in are completely undefined.  Many of those activities are completely defined in 3e D&D.  OD&D requires that the group discuss and experience the game together and reach a consensus on their AOR to be successful.  Since they are at different ends of the complexity/coverage spectrum the process of reaching a shared AOR will look completely different between a group playing OD&D and a group playing 3e.  However, I believe that the process of reaching a shared AOR still goes on in 3e and to nearly the same extent as it does in OD&D for successful gaming groups.  IMO it has to because, no matter how many activities are covered by the rules, the game still ultimately comes down to an imaginary space created by the GM and shared by the players.  If the GM's view of the imaginary space does not mesh with the player's view, the game will feel arbitrary and inconsistent to the players no matter how clearly defined the rules are.



> You seem to think those objective rules and codified modifiers and difficulties should be largely altered or ignored. <snip> But your premise, that they should be largely altered or ignored, is not universally desirable because it creates its own problems.




I really don't think that.  I just don't believe that the codified modifiers cover every situation that might call for a numerical representation in the game.



> The reason why there are dice in role-playing games is to simulate the fact that what a person (character) wants to do does not always determine how well they actually do it.  A GM may very much want to be consistent, predictable, and fair, but it doesn't always turn out that way.  YMMV.




Let's just say that I think that in a game run by a consistent, predictable and fair GM, the amount of insecurity incorporated into play by the randomness of the dice is something the players can gauge and depend on.  That they can expect from game to game that certain types of dice rolls come with certain types of consequences.  For example, that missing an opponent engaged in melee with an ally with a ranged attack won't simply be a miss with no chance of hitting your ally one game session and call for a roll with a 90% chance of outright killing your ally at the next game session.



> I think that helps a great deal. Let me simply say this. If you don't think a player can't bog a game down asking questions as much as they can bog the game down looking up rules, you've never had someone like me as a player.




That's just it.  I'm not interested in how long it takes to accomplish certain tasks during the game.  I plan on playing RPGs until I keel over, so I'm in no hurry.  I don't consider a player asking relevant questions to be "bogging down the game".  That activity is part of the game and AFAIC a large part of the fun.  I do consider looking up rules to be "bogging", because it's not actually play, it's work I do in order to get back to the play, and it's work that I want to do as little of as possible.


----------



## John Morrow

Ourph said:
			
		

> Write a novel why don't you!




Well, doing so actually seems to be helping clarifying things.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> OK.  This is the problem with starting a discussion with one poster (in this case 2, Buzz and Psion) and continuing it with someone else 5 pages later.  I think we've gotten off track here, because you've placed me as defending positions I never took and don't agree with.




Sure, no problem. 



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> 1 - Defending my original thesis. Namely, that rules-heavy games ALSO require (to virtually the same degree as rules-lite games) that the group share a similar "assessment of reality" (let's call it AOR)or the game will suffer.  With the addendum that rules-heavy games sometimes offer a bit of psychological comfort by either hiding differences in "AOR" or in some cases, exposing them very quickly.




I disagree that the rules simply provide "psychological comfort" and simply hide differences in the AOR.  In my experience, a group can use the rules do define the AOR and the more comprehensive the rules, the more comprehensive the AOR they provide.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Do the "answers" you come up with always coincide with the GM's rulings?  If so, is that because you're playing a rules-heavy game or because you and your GM share a similar AOR?




It's because both I and the GM are using the rules to provide a substantial amount of the AOR.  The codify the way things will be resolved in a way that's accessible to both the players and GM.  They serve the same purpose as the GM writing a treatise on how they are going to resolve combat based on the various conditions present.  Rather than the GM making it up, they use the AOR provided by the game designers and incorporated into the rules as a common framework.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> I would argue that, no matter what game you were playing, if you and your GM didn't share a common AOR you wouldn't feel comfortable figuring things out on your own.




The less GM subjectivity that's present in the resolution process, the less differences in AOR seem to matter in my experience.  My group has severe AOR difference problems despite many of us having role-played together for more than a decade and despite knowing each other quite well.  For whatever reasons, our assessments of reality differ substantially quote often.  The more the resolution of a situation relies on an objective ruleset and the less it relies on the GM's personal assessment of the situation, the less the AOR matters in my experience.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Maybe this is just a case of our POV differing to the extent we really can't understand each other.  I don't view the DM saying..."It's a 10ft pit, there's mud around it, so players move at 1/2 speed and running isn't possible (therefore no running start, double the DC of Jump checks), there's a really strong updraft, so that adds a circumstance bonus to the Jump check....so the final DC is _X_"...as playing D&D rules-lite.  I see it as the DM doing what the rulebooks instruct him to do - apply circumstance modifiers when appropriate.  Maybe we just disagree on the definition of "appropriate" in this context.




In my experience, GMs don't worry about strong updrafts and mud unless there is a strong setting-based reason for having such things involved in the situation.  YMMV.  But I do wonder if at least some of the GMs who do include things like mud and updrafts are doing so to justify setting their own DC based on how much risk they want the task to have for a particular PC.  



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Again, we're off track.  I'm not commenting on the level and frequency of judgement calls, I'm questioning the assertions of two other posters who said they preferred rules-heavy games (especially D&D) because when playing them, the GM doesn't have to make judgement calls because the rules tell him what to do.




In my experience, that's exactly how rule-heavy systems like D&D 3e and the Hero system usually work in practice, even if the rules as written permit the GM to inject a subjective assessment into the numbers.  In my experience, a GM looking to work with the rules (rather than fighting them) will often just use the rules as written.  YMMV.  In such a situation, the GM normally really don't have to make any judgement calls about the mechanics to resolve a situation because the rules do define all the numbers on an objective way.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> My counter to that is that every time the GM applies or doesn't apply a modifier based on his interpretation of the environment in which the PC finds himself, he's making the same kind of judgement call that seems to be so distasteful in examples of rules-lite play.  The only difference I can see is that the judgement calls take place on another level, hidden behind a veneer of rules.




I don't think it's the same thing for two reasons.  A big difference is deciding to use a modifier or not is very different than a GM subjectively determining the magnitude of a modifier.  There is a big difference between deciding that the bottom of a pit is solid stone 20 feet from the top of the pit (apply falling rules accordingly) and deciding that the 20 foot fall will break a character's leg.  There is a big difference between deciding that a pit is 20 feet across and applying the jumping rules for 20 feet and deciding the DC to jump across the 20 foot pit.  And it also raises the issue of whether the GM is setting the DC for story-based reasons or for setting-based reasons once the DC is entirely in the GM's hands. 



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> There are a lot of comments like this in the rest of your post.  Ones that would put me in the position of defending rules-lite or C&C vs. rules-heavy or D&D (or whatever other games are being used as examples).  Please don't be offended that I'm going to skip over them and not answer/respond.  I'm not ducking the question, I just don't want to take the position of defending those things because I don't believe in them.  I'm asserting the statement I listed above, nothing more.




If I'm misrepresenting your position, by all means tell me so and don't bother answering.  No offense taken.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Right.  I agree.  Back to my original point....If D&D requires a DM to make some subjective judgement calls and you, as a player, are comfortable with the way your DM handles himself in those situations - why would it make you uncomfortable to expand the instances when those judgement calls are necessary?




Because (A) not all subjective judgement calls are equally important and (B) many of the problems with subjective judgement calls only show up as patterns in a string of judgement calls so the odd one-off judgement call is less likely to create a noticable problem than a string of them.  Point (B) is why I'm far more tolerent of things like totally subjective play and even diceless play in a one-off game than in a campaign.  My group tends to run campaigns, not one-offs.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> From my POV, a player will either trust or not trust the GM and if he trusts (usually because of a shared AOR and/or good dialogue between the player and GM) then the move to rules-lite shouldn't be a problem.




There are things I will trust the GMs in my group with and things I won't trust them with.  It's an AOR issue, not a maturity issue.  But I agree that if a group has a strongly shared AOR and good communication, a rule-light game might work very well for that group.  But I would still argue that the two can feel different and the way the game is played can change more than simply the reduction of rules, sometimes in desirable ways and somtimes in undesirable ways.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Buzz and Psion seemed to be (I won't put words in their mouths, but this is the impression I got) saying not that D&D requires fewer instances of the DM making subjective judgement calls, but actually provided a ruleset in which the DM needed to make no subjective judgement calls at all and consequently playing 3e D&D by the RAW makes a shared AOR and dialogue irrelevant.  That is the idea that I'm taking issue with.




I think it's certainly possible to run D&D that way most of the time and I do think that using just the rules for most situations and minimizing the subjective input of the GM into the resolution process can actually provide an AOR for a group that doesn't otherwise have one.  For example, if a GM pits my PC against a group of orcs, it doesn't matter if he and I have a different assessment of the PC's chance of victory.  The assessment of reality provided by the game's designers via the rules will ultimately determine who wins.  I don't have to ask the GM what my chances of winning are or what various variables mean.  I can look at the rules for that.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> This is where these discussions usually diverge.  I disagree that rules-lite absolutely necessitates that the game be rules-insufficient.




I disagree with that, too.  Rule sufficiency is a highly subjective assessment and you can see how much it differs from group to group simply by looking at the rules different groups use, homebrew, and ignore.  In reality, most people want only the rules they need and not extra rules that they don't need.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> The difference between a rules-heavy game would be that tripping, tumbling past, disarming, wrestling, pushing someone around, etc. might all share the same dice roll mechanic, but would get vastly different modifiers for the same pair of combatants, would have numerous special rules that apply for each action, would interact with other combat actions or aspects of the game (feats frex.) in different ways, etc.  Whereas, in a rules-lite game, all of those situations would be covered in the rules, all would have clearly defined consequences, but since all are essentially combat actions that produce the effect of "doing something to your opponent he doesn't want you to do" they would all use the same roll, with the same modifier (or with only one of a very few modifiers based perhaps on whether the action is based on raw strength, raw agility or training) and that roll would be the same as the normal combat roll (since dealing damage to your opponent also qualifies as "doing something to your
> opponent he doesn't want you to do").  This is NOT something C&C does - which is one of the reasons I don't like it, refuse to defend it and find it a convenient but in some ways unfortunate example of a rules-lite game to use in this discussion.




The problem is that throwing out the detail doesn't mean that those details are "covered by the rules" in the same way that taking them into account does.  And for the record, I'm a big advocate of using rule-light systems in the way you describe but, alas, many players want more control and want to micromanage things like combat.  Personally, I have no use for feinting rules and such.  I assume that a suitably skilled fighter is using things like feints as a part of what makes them a suitably skilled fighter.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Flip that around and you have exactly the same question I put to Psion and Buzz.  Sure some GMs can run a good game of D&D with the players feeling comfortable that their AOR and the GM's are essentially the same, but that's looking at a best case scenario (i.e - players and a GM whose AOR are already similar enough that they probably wouldn't run into problems playing a rules-lite game either).  What's the worst case scenario?  Does D&D really produce a noticeably better outcome when you're playing with a DM whose AOR significantly differs from your own?




In my experience, it does when the subjectivity is minimalized because both parties are not relying on their own AOR to resolve actions.  They are relying on the AOR of the game designers as reflected in the rules.  It's like having a third party in the picture using an AOR that's accessible to both player and GM if they care to read the rules and comprehend them.  This really isn't that complicated.  It's the same reason software development teams use written processes and project plans to develop projects.  The more that's defined, the more accessible it is to all parties.  Rule-heavy systems simply define more information about how tasks will be resolved than rule-light systems do. 



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Again, I'm going to say that you're putting the best-case spin on the rules-heavy game and the worst-case spin on the rules-lite game.  If the rules-lite players all share a common AOR with their GM the amount of necessary communication isn't all that great.  If the rules-heavy players all have a completely different AOR than their GM, the amount of necessary communication shouldn't be (IMO) significantly different than the same group playing a rules-lite game.  Players in the rules-heavy game might think they are safe figuring out things like DCs on their own, but will their assessment match the assessment of the GM often enough that they become comfortable doing it?




Yes.  Because I think the bit you are missing is that in a rule-heavy game, the AOR of the game designers, as reflected by the rules, looms large on the horizon.  I don't have to communicate with the GM to understand how combat is going to be resolved in D&D or Hero.  I can read a book.  And as long as the GM and I are reading the same book, it should help give us a shared AOR for resolving what happens in the game.  And in my experience, it does.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> I play with people who all share a very similar AOR when it comes to RPGs, so it rarely matters how heavy or lite our rulesets are.  For the record, I've never played (and have no desire to play) C&C - which (although unquestionably rules-liter than D&D) isn't IMO a particularly well done example of a rules-lite game.  I'm familiar enough with the rules in terms of how skill-like activities are handled to use it as an example in comparison to 3e D&D - that's about it.




I play with people who, despite our best intentions and years of playing together, still have some nasty AOR problems so it does matter to us how heavy or light our rules our.  Yes, we can use rule-light games but there is such a thing as "too rule-light" for my group.  On the other hand, we're all primarily role-players not wargamers so there is also such a thing as "too rule-heavy".  We try to find a happy compromise in between.  



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Again, is this because of the ruleset or because of the DM's personality and the commonly arrived at consensus of the group about what's expected and wanted from the game?




It's because the rules minimize the need for GM subjectivity and the GM doesn't feel a need to insert subjectivity when it isn't necessary.  I suppose you could call that a shared AOR but it's a very simple one -- "We're using the rules as written and the GM is expected to use custom subjective modifiers as little as possible."  That's fairly easy to establish, even if you have to do so explicitly.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> For the record, when I ran 3.x D&D I tended to use all the codified modifiers plus any other modifiers that seemed reasonable.  I would say 80% of the time, the written modifiers were the only things I used, but on certain occasions when I had included specific world details I thought should be represented numerically in play, I felt no compunction in applying circumstance modifiers.  Personally, I don't see that as running the game rules-lite (since I was actually using all of the rules at the time).




Well, I think this describes exactly what I'm talking about.  If you use stock modifiers 80% of the time, that means that 80% of the time, you are using the AOR provided by the rules which bypasses AOR problems that might exist between player and GM.  My point is not that adding subjective modifiers here and there makes the game rule-light but that it resolves the situation in the same way that a rule-light game would, with all the benefits and liabilities of doing so.  It's the other 80% that I'm interested in because that's the part that's missing in a rule-light game.  No, 80% isn't 100% but if a group has problems, 80% is a lot better than 0%.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> I would argue against this.  Most new people who entered my games of D&D took time to adjust to the shared AOR of the group just as they would in a rules-lite game.  Hence my assertion that, while the numerous rules tend to give the illusion that you can have a certain level of expectation when you game at a new table, it's really only an illusion.  I played by the RAW, but my creation, as DM, of the game world (a completely subjective activity) affected the in-game reality to such an extent that rules knowledge didn't translate to an automatically shared AOR.  That takes interaction, communication and consensus - activities I would argue occur in every successful RPG group and the lack of which are the main cause of most unhappy, unsuccessful RPG group.




The GMs in my group (myself included) tend to use the game rules as a proxy for how things work in their game world.  In my experience, rules knowledge in those situations does translate into a substantially shared AOR because the AOR is the rules.  As I've said, my group seems to find it impossible to find a consistently shared AOR on the subjective player and GM level yet we all seem to be satisfied when we have rules to provide an external and defined AOR.  As such, a certain level of rules (not necessarily as heavy as D&D) are what allows us to have a happy and successful RPG group, at least for longer campaigns.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> OK, let's talk about really rules-lite for a moment and compare OD&D (3 LB only) and 3e.  In an OD&D game, numerous activities a gaming group might want to engage in are completely undefined.  Many of those activities are completely defined in 3e D&D.  OD&D requires that the group discuss and experience the game together and reach a consensus on their AOR to be successful.  Since they are at different ends of the complexity/coverage spectrum the process of reaching a shared AOR will look completely different between a group playing OD&D and a group playing 3e.  However, I believe that the process of reaching a shared AOR still goes on in 3e and to nearly the same extent as it does in OD&D for successful gaming groups.




In my experience, I don't believe this is true.  In my experience, the process of reading a rule system can help establish a common AOR between player and GM.  The more that's defined by the rules, the less finding a common AOR is going to depend on the players and GM understanding one another and the more it's going to depend on the players and GM understanding the rules.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> IMO it has to because, no matter how many activities are covered by the rules, the game still ultimately comes down to an imaginary space created by the GM and shared by the players.  If the GM's view of the imaginary space does not mesh with the player's view, the game will feel arbitrary and inconsistent to the players no matter how clearly defined the rules are.




The imaginary space is filtered through the rules which define a great deal about what's possible and not possible within the shared space.  That's why the rule system used matters and why there are different rule systems for different settings and genres.  Using your 80% from above, if 80% of your decisions as a GM are based on the rules and not your subjective assessment of the situation, then 80% of your decisions are defined by the AOR of the rules and not your AOR.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> I really don't think that.  I just don't believe that the codified modifiers cover every situation that might call for a numerical representation in the game.




That's back to the excluded middle argument.  They don't have to cover every situation.  If they cover 80% of the situations (your assessment for your games), then that's substantially more objective than 0% or just making stuff up as you go. 



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Let's just say that I think that in a game run by a consistent, predictable and fair GM, the amount of insecurity incorporated into play by the randomness of the dice is something the players can gauge and depend on.  That they can expect from game to game that certain types of dice rolls come with certain types of consequences.  For example, that missing an opponent engaged in melee with an ally with a ranged attack won't simply be a miss with no chance of hitting your ally one game session and call for a roll with a 90% chance of outright killing your ally at the next game session.




Yes, but just because the GM is consistent and predictable in their game and think they are being fair by ruling that a miss never has a chance of hitting an ally does not mean that players will expect it until it's established (they might make decisions based on the assumption that they can hit allies unless the GM tells them otherwise or they figure it out) or even think it's reasonable or just.  Having rules that define what happens when a ranged attack miss lets the players and GM know what to expect, even if they've never seen a miss before.  And if they don't like how it works, they have the opportunity before the game even starts to homebrew in a different way of doing it, before it becomes a critical issue in the game.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> That's just it.  I'm not interested in how long it takes to accomplish certain tasks during the game.  I plan on playing RPGs until I keel over, so I'm in no hurry.  I don't consider a player asking relevant questions to be "bogging down the game".  That activity is part of the game and AFAIC a large part of the fun.  I do consider looking up rules to be "bogging", because it's not actually play, it's work I do in order to get back to the play, and it's work that I want to do as little of as possible.




Even if I plan on playing RPGs until I keel over, I'd rather not spend that time discussing the nuances of the setting just like I'd rather not spend my time watching television watching commercials, credits, or a test pattern.  To me, discussing whether my character is close enough to get hit by an NPC as he runs by in combat is about equal to counting squares or looking up a rule and if looking up the rule or counting squares if faster and gives a similar answer, then sign me up for the faster alternative.  Further, while I'm querying the GM about things that only matter to my character and my decision, the other players are sitting there essentially looking at a test pattern.  That a game moves along at something resembling real time matters to me and is, in fact, the primary reason why rule-light systems appeal to me.  Often they do run faster than a rule-heavy system.


----------



## JohnSnow

John Morrow said:
			
		

> That a game moves along at something resembling real time matters to me and is, in fact, the primary reason why rule-light systems appeal to me. Often they do run faster than a rule-heavy system.




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?


----------



## der_kluge

buzz said:
			
		

> I"m trying to imagine how one could add "more rules than necessary". Would those be rules that were redundant, e.g., a second set of grappling rules? Or is "necessary" just a synonym for "taste"? I mean, the detailed rules for vehicles in HERO's _The Ultimate Vehicle_ aren't necessary per se, but someone who wanted more detail than was in the core book might find them rewarding (and, thus, necessary to their having fun).
> 
> Or is "necessary" possibly a design issue? E.g., "this rule subset for blah was unnecessary becasue there's already a mechanic that could be used to handle blah." Or is that just good/bad design?





'counter-spelling' is an example of mores rules than is necessary.  I'm sure there are others.


----------



## JohnSnow

der_kluge said:
			
		

> 'counter-spelling' is an example of mores rules than is necessary. I'm sure there are others.




Not to disagree just to disagree, but why do you say that?

When a fighter swings his sword, there's a chance, usually based on the capabilities of the other character that he won't hit. Many spells don't have saving throws or attack rolls. How do you reward characters who take pains to try to "neutralize" the spells of the enemy mage? Can no spellcaster foil the casting of another?

Counter-spelling simulates this archetypal form of fantasy adventure. So, if you feel that mages spoiling each other's spells is part of the genre, what's the mechanic for it?

Just curious.

I agree on your general point though. I think 3e probably does have "more rules than necessary." I nominate the 14 different bonus types (granted it's an improvement from earlier editions where ALL items "stacked"). Condense them down to a few rational ones and you'd rein in rampant magic abuse (or "Christmas Tree PCs") at the same time.

Attacks of opportunity could do for some simplification. Good concept - just clumsy implementation.

I'm sure there are others, but I just don't see that counter-spelling fits.


----------



## Ourph

> buzz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I"m trying to imagine how one could add "more rules than necessary". Would those be rules that were redundant, e.g., a second set of grappling rules? Or is "necessary" just a synonym for "taste"? I mean, the detailed rules for vehicles in HERO's _The Ultimate Vehicle_ aren't necessary per se, but someone who wanted more detail than was in the core book might find them rewarding (and, thus, necessary to their having fun).
> 
> Or is "necessary" possibly a design issue? E.g., "this rule subset for blah was unnecessary becasue there's already a mechanic that could be used to handle blah." Or is that just good/bad design?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'counter-spelling' is an example of mores rules than is necessary. I'm sure there are others.
Click to expand...



I would say arcane spell failure percentages for armor are another candidate for the "too many rules" category.  

First, it breaks the rule of having a single dice-rolling mechanic to resolve tasks (d20+modifiers vs. DC).  

Second, you've already got an ACP for each suit of armor, why not just make arcane spell failure part of the extant skill system and assign the ACP as a penalty to a Concentration or Spellcraft check for casting in armor?  That falls right in line with how numerous other situations are handled in the rules and doesn't require an entirely new (though arguably simple) rule to handle.


----------



## JohnSnow

Ourph said:
			
		

> I would say arcane spell failure percentages for armor are another candidate for the "too many rules" category.
> 
> First, it breaks the rule of having a single dice-rolling mechanic to resolve tasks (d20+modifiers vs. DC).
> 
> Second, you've already got an ACP for each suit of armor, why not just make arcane spell failure part of the extant skill system and assign the ACP as a penalty to a Concentration or Spellcraft check for casting in armor? That falls right in line with how numerous other situations are handled in the rules and doesn't require an entirely new (though arguably simple) rule to handle.




Now THAT's a good one. I suppose if you think the ACP is too light, you could double it (like they do with swimming). Personally I think special circumstances should stick to the core mechanic as closely as possible.

In that vein, does anyone have a similar feeling about the percent miss chance from "concealment?" Or do people think that's good as is?


----------



## Ourph

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I suppose if you think the ACP is too light, you could double it (like they do with swimming).




I've thought about this, but even for armors with NO ACP, you still have to make the check and beat the minimum DC.  If you make it 10+spell level, that's still going to give the average 1st level caster an ~15% chance of failing the casting check on a 1st level spell(not unreasonable IMO, but probably higher than the normal ASF chances given for those armors).


----------



## JohnSnow

Ourph said:
			
		

> I've thought about this, but even for armors with NO ACP, you still have to make the check and beat the minimum DC. If you make it 10+spell level, that's still going to give the average 1st level caster an ~15% chance of failing the casting check on a 1st level spell(not unreasonable IMO, but probably higher than the normal ASF chances given for those armors).




Hmm...I see your point. But then you'll get a lot of casters running around in padded, leather, and masterwork studded leather (maybe even a masterwork chain shirt...:\)

How does it scale as the casters go up in level? Would it make us likely to see armored casters at higher levels? Just curious...

Obviously, a high-level caster could throw out 1st level spells until the cows come home without worrying about the fact that he's wearing armor. But what about his mid-level spells?


----------



## Ourph

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Hmm...I see your point. But then you'll get a lot of casters running around in padded, leather, and masterwork studded leather (maybe even a masterwork chain shirt...:\)




I don't know that the end result would be exactly the same as the current system.  But does it really need to be as long as it fulfills the purpose of the ASF% (i.e. - providing a penalty for arcane casters wearing armor)?  Like I said, even with an ACP of 0, a 1st level caster's going to have an ~15% chance of losing his spell on any given roll while wearing such armor, and that's with the less stringent DC = 10 + spell level.  If you up that to the normal DC = 15 + spell level.....well, I'd never be wearing armor as an arcane caster.


----------



## JohnSnow

So you wouldn't just ask the caster to make a check if he wasn't wearing armor?

If so, that might be the element that I was missing.

It's got to "substantially discourage" casters from wearing armor. Not just discourage them. At least, that's my opinion.

By the way, +1 on a d20 is the same as +5%...just sayin'.


----------



## Ourph

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> So you wouldn't just ask the caster to make a check if he wasn't wearing armor?




Right.  No armor = no check necessary.


----------



## JohnSnow

Ourph said:
			
		

> Right. No armor = no check necessary.




Gotcha. Well that makes a fair amount of sense.

Are we off-topic?


----------



## Ourph

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Gotcha. Well that makes a fair amount of sense.
> 
> Are we off-topic?




Yes, but we're at least close.  Which, considering it *IS* pg. 19 of the thread is somewhat of a miracle.


----------



## Gentlegamer

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> 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.



He did more than claim that wasn't what he found in his "research."  He claimed the ONLY reason most people think "rules lite" is "simpler" or "better" is because they _desperately want it to be true_: that their own experience and abilities have nothing to do with whether "rules like" is actually simpler, faster, or "better" _for them_, but that it is merely a mantra that they have chanted enough to delude themselves into believing, when the "hard facts" show that the belief is false.


----------



## fanboy2000

Good point. All Dancy did was replace subject bias with experimenter bias. If there were a way to do a double blind experiment with different game systems, that would be something. Without a double blind experiment, all we're left with is a lot bias.


----------



## maggot

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> He claimed the ONLY reason most people think "rules lite" is "simpler" or "better" is because they _desperately want it to be true_




Actually, he marked that as his opinion for the discrepency between what people thought and wha he observed.

But I think that a "rules light" approach works well for "rules light" gamers, while a "rules heavy" approach works well for "rules heavy" gamers.  So a blind study wouldn't work.

If you took a bunch of rules-heavy D&D players and had them play an extremely rules-light game like say Everway (the lightest I can think of), I could see a lot of problems with deciding how to handle situations.  The rules-heavy players would search the book for answers when the answers are not there.  But rules-light games have very little rules, so the rules-heavy players would eventually figure out that these things weren't covered, and probably start making lists of house rules making the rules-light game heavier.

Similarly, if you took a bunch of rules-light players and had them play a rules-heavy game, they would have a hard time as well.  Maybe not as hard because they would just make things up as always, and they would thus ignore large portions of the rules-heavy game making it effectively rules-lighter.

I think the problem is when you have a mixture of gamers.  As a rules-lighter GM with some rules-heavier players, I can tell you that is true.


----------



## woodelf

reveal said:
			
		

> OTOH, aren't rules lite games promoted as being "easier" to start with and to play, in general? I don't know much about these systems, but if I were a newbie, I would want to start with something "easy" and a rules lite system would be more attractive because I wouldn't have to learn as much to start playing. But it seems, at least from Ryan Dancey's peepshow, that is not the case and could, in fact, turn off people who think "If this is rules lite, I'd hate to try the rules 'heavy' games!"




On the flipside, i've known several people whose first intro to RPG was D20 System of some flavor, and they had no idea that not all RPGs were that complex, and probably would never have given them a secnod chance if i hadn't let them know that fact.

Ryan's comments are ambiguous, but it _sounds_ like he was talking about D&D players trying out a "rules-lite" game. If a game is unfamiliar to you, you won't be quick about it. If a game is in a style that you're not comfortable with, you won't be quick about it. If you insist on playing a game in a different style than it's intended for, it won't be quick-n-easy. I'd love to hear more details, to determine how much relevancy his experiences actually have. Guess i better figure out what a livejournal is, and how to contribute to it.


----------



## woodelf

mcrow said:
			
		

> I think there is a pretty good chance he has never played a lite system before. If he did he would realize that the learing curve and prep time is much lower in lite systems. Lite systems will typically have less realism than d20, but d20 is not exaclty the most realistic system either.




Well, this gets to "what's 'lite'?" Frex, lots of people refer to Cinematic Unisystem (B:tVS RPG) and Storyteller as 'rules-lite'. Personally, i don't think they've really gotten anywhere near the threshhold. If i'm going to divide all RPGs into two categories "lite" and "heavy", those games fall on the heavy side of the divide--albeit at the absolute lite end of the heavy games. When someone says "rules-lite" i think of games like Trollbabe, Risus, or Over the Edge. That is, i think there's more in common between Unisystem and D&D3E, than between Unisystem and, say, Over the Edge. [That said, i only rarely consider a dichotomous categorization useful in this area--usually, recognizing that we're dealing with a spectrum, probably on multiple axes, seems more useful to the discussion.]


----------



## woodelf

mearls said:
			
		

> Name a "rules lite" RPG that remained in print and actively supported by a publisher for more than 5 years.
> 
> I think only Amber (a completely genius design, BTW) meets this criteria.
> 
> In the current marketplace, I can't think of a single rules light game that's thriving. What I think is interesting, and this ties in Ryan's point that people *want* rules lite gaming to succeed, is that I suspect a lot of people think a game is rules lite when it's not.
> 
> What's even more interesting is that if you look at the industry over the past 30+ years, only rules heavy games have found and sustained audiences. Amber is perhaps the only exception I can think of (and again, that's a genius design).




Um, Fudge? It's got a bigger audience than Amber DRP, i'll wager (not that that's saying much). And, depending on where you put the threshhold, BRP and D6 System might both qualify--certainly, compared to D&D3E, they look awful light.

Sorcerer's been in print for more than 5 years, hasn't it? Didn't Castle Falkenstein make it 5 years before RTG all but evaporated? Also, why does support matter? Part of what attracts me to rules-lite RPGs is precisely the lack of the supplement treadmill--i'm actually turned off by games with a stack of supplements. I want to buy an RPG, and play it, and never buy another book for that RPG ever again, and then play it some more. And i suspect i'm not alone. The desire for simplicity, rather than completeness, is likely to express as much in the desire for fewer books as in the desire for fewer rules.

And surely, continued playability is a better judge than continued saleability. That is, if someone gets sick of a game after a few years, that's a problem. But if everybody who wants the game buys it--if you satisfy your market--is lack of further sales really an indictment of the quality of the game?

But i think i agree with you: i think most people think of fairly crunchy systems when they hear the term 'rules lite'. 

Oh, i just thought of a way to make my point more clearly:

If we rate crunchiness on a scale of 1 to 10, with, say, Risus and Over the Edge at about a 2 (yes, i can think of noticably less-crunchy RPGs), and, say, Phoenix Command or Albedo at about a 10, D&D3E would be somewhere in the 9 range. Cinematic Unisystem, Storyteller, and Fading Suns would all be around a 7. BRP (CoC, specifically) would be probably a 5. IOW, something like CoC might be right on the cusp of "rules-lite-ness", if the dividing point is the middle of the range. However, the fact that 95%+ of all RPGs ever commercially available, and an even larger percentage of sales, fall into the 6-9 range on the crunchiness scale really skews things. So, the median result might well be, say, 7.3. Thus, some see that as the logical split-point, and consider anything less crunchy to be on the "lite" side. But, IMHO, looking at the whole spectrum, and acknowledging that there are a ton more games on one side of the line [which is at 5.5] than the other is more useful.


----------



## woodelf

GMSkarka said:
			
		

> Only if you change the yard markers. Remember that back in 91, VAMPIRE was being touted as an example of rules-light gaming. It certainly has endured, for more than the Dancey-Mearls-requisite 5 years....




Of course, since day one i've never considered V:tM to be rules-lite. Lighter than most D20 System stuff, yes, but not "lite" in a pseudo-absolute sense. And i love the WoD games (well, except for Vampire), so this isn't meant to be disparaging. It probably stems in part from having discovered OtE before V:tM.


----------



## woodelf

Psion said:
			
		

> I thought about that earlier; that might be more indicative of _sales_ than popularity. But what about _persistence_? Perhaps it's the case that it's _fresh product_ that keeps a game alive, something oft asserted elsewhere, and it's more than rules heavy games lend themselves to this model than rules light games moreso than any enduring appeal of the rules which leads to the enduring popularity of heavier games compared to light games.
> 
> In fact, I'd go so far to say I beleive that is the case.
> 
> That said, GURPS (a game I do not consider rules light) consistently produces supplements that are usually somewhat to very light on actual rules material. Why couldn't a rules light game follow the GURPS model?
> 
> Or is it just that none have?




Isn't that pretty much what the CityBooks did? Sure, they were pretty much compatible with AD&D, but the actual rules skeleton in them was pretty light-weight--much more in line with D&D Basic Set.  

Oh, and i just had to share: my primary complaint with GURPS books, and what keeps me from buying more of them? Way too crunchy, with too much of the content expressed only as mechanics (as opposed to being redundantly expressed in both fluff and crunch forms). So maybe my perception is similar to the general markets, and part of why the GURPS books sell is the plentitude of crunch within, and that's why a rules-lite equivalent wouldn't work--because you'd be stripping out a significant chunk of what makes them sell.


----------



## Akrasia

woodelf said:
			
		

> Well, this gets to "what's 'lite'?" Frex, lots of people refer to Cinematic Unisystem (B:tVS RPG) and Storyteller as 'rules-lite'. Personally, i don't think they've really gotten anywhere near the threshhold....




I don't disagree with you.  But since this is a d20 website, most people use the term "rules light" to simply refer to games "lighter than 3e".


----------



## SweeneyTodd

This assessment of reality discussion is interesting to me. I wonder if anyone is interested in discussing how it relates back to elements of the game that are not covered by the rules, such as, well, character interactions? 

The reason I'm curious about it is that I could see there being far more disagreements in perception (or however you want to phrase AOR) with things like interacting with NPCs. I mean, a pit's a pit, you jump it or you don't, but people are very complex things to interact with.

Is part of it perhaps that when it comes to NPC reactions, players just go "OK, this I cede to GM fiat" and roll with it? 

I ask partially because I'm fascinated that so many rules-heavy systems are either rules-light or no rules at all for things like character-to-character interaction, and partially because I have a group where the one thing the players are most likely to battle with me about is how a NPC might respond to something. (Okay, part of that's due to the fact that we have shared ownership and authorship of NPCs, but it's still relevant.)


----------



## der_kluge

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Not to disagree just to disagree, but why do you say that?
> 
> When a fighter swings his sword, there's a chance, usually based on the capabilities of the other character that he won't hit. Many spells don't have saving throws or attack rolls. How do you reward characters who take pains to try to "neutralize" the spells of the enemy mage? Can no spellcaster foil the casting of another?




It's good in theory, and an interesting concept, but it's one of those things that comes up so rarely, that when it does come up, it bogs the game down into a mire while people look up the rules. I mean - quick, how does counter-spelling work?  Can you tell me without looking it up?  I doubt it.  In a poll on here a while back, I think like 5% of people on here ever actually even did  counter-spelling regularly in their campaigns.

I played countless 2nd edition games, and we certainly never bothered to question why such a mechanic existed. It certainly doesn't seem like the game was less fun without counter-spelling. Some rules add value. This one certainly hasn't, at least not enough to justify its existance.


----------



## Ourph

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> I have a group where the one thing the players are most likely to battle with me about is how a NPC might respond to something. (Okay, part of that's due to the fact that we have shared ownership and authorship of NPCs, but it's still relevant.)




This is why I think that rules-lite vs. rules-heavy almost always makes significantly less impact on how safe or comfortable the players feel than how good the social contract and group interpersonal communication skills are.  In any game that follows the standard RPG model, there are going to be significant instances where the referee/GM/DM/CK/whatever has to make decisions that significantly impact the game world and, as a result, the PCs (there are a few games where all players share the powers of the GM, which have their own issues).  For players to feel some comfort level, the GM has to either 1) share a fairly similar outlook on how the game world works with the players, meaning his decisions mesh pretty closely with what they expect; or 2) consistently and actively engage in communication with the players - letting them know how he sees things and listening to their ideas about how they perceive the game world working.

While I'm sure that having a pre-packaged Assessment of Reality provided in the rules makes it easier for some groups to reach consensus, I still maintain that those groups (if the necessity arose) could probably do the exact same thing on their own, without the benefit of a pre-packaged AOR - and that groups who seem unable to establish a shared AOR with a game that comes without a pre-packaged one would generally run into the same problem even if they were playing a game that provided one for them.  IME, if the communication between players and GM is good, a shared AOR usually just happens.  If communication is bad, no matter how many aids the rules provide to help the group toward that goal, a shared AOR is very difficult to achieve.


----------



## Akrasia

Ourph said:
			
		

> This is why I think that rules-lite vs. rules-heavy almost always makes significantly less impact on how safe or comfortable the players feel than how good the social contract and group interpersonal communication skills are.  In any game that follows the standard RPG model, there are going to be significant instances where the referee/GM/DM/CK/whatever has to make decisions that significantly impact the game world and, as a result, the PCs (there are a few games where all players share the powers of the GM, which have their own issues).  For players to feel some comfort level, the GM has to either 1) share a fairly similar outlook on how the game world works with the players, meaning his decisions mesh pretty closely with what they expect; or 2) consistently and actively engage in communication with the players - letting them know how he sees things and listening to their ideas about how they perceive the game world working.
> 
> While I'm sure that having a pre-packaged Assessment of Reality provided in the rules makes it easier for some groups to reach consensus, I still maintain that those groups (if the necessity arose) could probably do the exact same thing on their own, without the benefit of a pre-packaged AOR - and that groups who seem unable to establish a shared AOR with a game that comes without a pre-packaged one would generally run into the same problem even if they were playing a game that provided one for them.  IME, if the communication between players and GM is good, a shared AOR usually just happens.  If communication is bad, no matter how many aids the rules provide to help the group toward that goal, a shared AOR is very difficult to achieve.




I normally don't like to quote an entire post, but this one is golden.  I couldn't agree with it more.  

Case in point: JohnSnow and I clearly have some disagreements over the whole 'rules medium/light versus rules heavy' question.  But we were both in the same gaming group for about 16 months (until I moved away from San Francisco two weeks ago).  These disagreements had very little impact on the actual running of our games -- and we in fact got along very well (indeed, we had a really great group of gamers).

Having a group of mature gamers all concerned with "having a good time" is probably the most important factor in ensuring a successful 'RPG experience'.  The other important factor is having a GM who is enthusiastic about the game he/she is running.  This is the reason why I would be happy to play in a 'rules heavy' game with a good GM, despite not liking to GM such systems myself.


----------



## Staffan

der_kluge said:
			
		

> I mean - quick, how does counter-spelling work?



Ready action to counterspell. When the opposing mage starts casting, roll Spellcraft (15+spell level) to ID the spell. You can counterspell with either the same spell (automatic success), a spell specifically noted as countering the spell in question (e.g. _haste_ vs _slow_; also automatic), or _dispel magic_ (requiring a dispel check). The dispel option can be used even if you don't ID the spell. In addition there are feats that make it easier to counterspell.


> Can you tell me without looking it up?



Yes. I'd need to look up what the various feats do for countering, though - IIRC, Improved Counterspell lets you counter with any spell that's the same school and higher level, but I'm not certain of that.



> In a poll on here a while back, I think like 5% of people on here ever actually even did  counter-spelling regularly in their campaigns.



Haven't had anyone try it yet, but I know the rules anyway


----------



## oldschooler

Ok, gotta vent a little. Try not to make too much sense of this, I'm just going off on a thread-ispired tangent:
Freedom is seen to be good by many people, but if they actually have it, it terrifies them.
Witness seat belt laws: Mere decades ago, kids could ride in the back of pick-ups in a world where some cars didn't even come equipped with seat belts, yet somehow we survived. Now, if you're caught not wearing one, it's hundreds of dollars out of your pocket because everyone voted to give up that freedom (mainly because we were told to).
Now, as for light/heavy rules: Originally, D&D had three skimpy books and somehow, we all survived. Must have been a pretty good game to get where it is now! But folks only _talk_ about freedom. They can't practice it. Give somebody who's currently into d20 Fantasy a copy of those 30 year old rules and watch 'em squirm!
"What? the Referee controls the game? How can I exploit that? I have to use imagination? I can't! Gimmie rules! Tell me what to do! I don't know what armor looks like, quick, show me a picture!"
Face it America, all that talk about freedom and democracy means very little when it's Wal*Mart, Wizards of the Coast and Disney that tells you how to live your life. Do yourself a favor. Pick up a game with little or no rules. Open it. See if you can't just enjoy yourself a little bit without developing an ulcer over 'who goes first' or 'what do you mean _save vs. poison or die'_.
When I drive, I wear a seat belt. Not because of Maine state law, but rather Murphy's Law. If I want music, I'm not going to Wal*Mart because my supplier doesn't dictate what I demand. When I game, I want to _game_, not agonize over 5' steps or what feats to choose.

BTW:

*Father Flagellent*
18th level Cleric (OD&D)
*Strength:* 10 (not a Fighting-Man)
*Intelligence:* 12 (not a Magic-User)
*Wisdom:* 16 (+10% to XP)
*Constitution:* 9 (can't complain)
*Dexterity:* 11 (what's a Thief?)
*Charisma:* 17 (up to 6 henchmen & +2 to loyalty)
*Alignment:* Law
*Gold Pieces:* more than you 
*Experience: *51,200,000
*Hit Points:* 42
*Spells:* any 7 (from each of 5 spell levels), pick 'em and play!
*Epuipment:* silver cross, mace +2, plate armor & sheild +2, potions of Healing and Gaseous Form, Snake Staff, Boots of Levitation, backpack, iron rations, waterskin, 3 vials of holy water and a church in the city.
*Backstory:* explored White Lion castle in the name of God, wherein he eventually laid low the vile Baron Darkcloak and his undead horde. Now resides in the city of Emberfile, only occasionally going on quests for myriad holy reasons.

Yeah, that's the whole character and he took me all of two minutes to create. I'm not even going to attempt to make a 3.5 version!


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist

And another thing ... we had to roll our dice uphill, BOTH WAYS, in the snow the whole distance and each of them there d20s weighed night on 400 pound and had edges so razor sharp I knew men as used them to shave horses.  

AND we had to ink our own numerals!

--fje


----------



## Ace

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Someone said that we C&Cers can't talk about what we like about C&C, but what we don't like about 3e.  Imo, that's because the very absense of some of 3e's rules IS what I like about C&C, and conversely, is what I don't like about 3e.  Aoos, ninja rogues instead of thieves, multiple attacks for clerics, rogues, and wizards, wilderogue rangers, counting every 5 foot step, one thousand hit point critters.  I could go on.  Now, I'm not really bashing 3e, if you like those things, fine.  I don't.  But I get the feeling that 3e players think I'm somehow inferior for NOT caring for those things.  That I just "don't get it."  I suppose the reverse is true as well, but the C&C fans get dismissed because we are a minority, and thus must be wrong.
> 
> As for Dancey's claim, well, last night's 3e game lasted until midnight.  ONE battle with a bunch of drow.  Five and a half hours.  Would have been maybe 45 minutes in C&C.




In my Friday Unisystem game we had a battle with 3 vampires that lasted about 5 minutes real time -- Another bar brawl (1 crazed hunter and a priest vs 5 Spriggans and an Elf Lord) lasted about 3 

System overhead does matter to actual play  

However the overhead can also be the goal -- if you want tactical gaming (something I actually enjoy) you need rules -- the D&D ones are rather good and provide a most excellent play experience 

The trick is to find what YOUR group wants to play at any given time and play that

If you can keep the "least offensive common denominator" out of your campaign and get all the players on the same page your campaign will be better 

This means folks need to understand the campaign, like and understand the system and  have compatible characters --

It also means from time to time if a member fo the group is a problem under a the rules everyone else wants to play (say you have a 3e hater in the game) than he/she needs to be out 

too much compromise on system, setting and theme leads to a sullen game


----------



## BOZ

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> And another thing ... we had to roll our dice uphill, BOTH WAYS, in the snow the whole distance and each of them there d20s weighed night on 400 pound and had edges so razor sharp I knew men as used them to shave horses.
> 
> AND we had to ink our own numerals!




LOL!  nail on head.  

older is better!  new is bad!


----------



## Henry

A few counterpoints to think about:



			
				oldschooler said:
			
		

> Now, as for light/heavy rules: Originally, D&D had three skimpy books and somehow, we all survived. Must have been a pretty good game to get where it is now! But folks only _talk_ about freedom. They can't practice it. Give somebody who's currently into d20 Fantasy a copy of those 30 year old rules and watch 'em squirm!
> "What? the Referee controls the game? How can I exploit that? I have to use imagination? I can't! Gimmie rules! Tell me what to do! I don't know what armor looks like, quick, show me a picture!"




Yes, but when was the last time you were in a game with an average DM? Someone who you felt you either (A) couldn't trust to make a sensible ruling where the books didn't cover it, or (B) had a hard time thinking outside the box when you wanted something other than a strictly iconic character? One of the chief complaints from lots of inexperienced or newer players was the lack of flexibility in the basic rules, from AD&D onward to 2nd edition AD&D. It was part of the appeal of systems like Runequest, Rolemaster, GURPS, Ars Magica, Vampire: the Masquerade, etc. - systems that predated current games by decades in some cases. Where people didn't like classed and leveled systems, or wanted robust skill systems, etc. Hundreds of thousands of gamers over the past 20 years either experimented with these systems, or left AD&D entirely for them.

In a game with a good, experienced GM, who knows what their players want and how to entertain them, the level of detail in the system is not as important as the flexibility of the GM and the trust he/she can inspire in the players. On the other hand, where the GM is less devoted to this, the level of specificity in the system is preferred to having rules that are entirely GM-created.



> ...Do yourself a favor. Pick up a game with little or no rules. Open it. See if you can't just enjoy yourself a little bit without developing an ulcer over 'who goes first' or 'what do you mean _save vs. poison or die'_.




On the other hand, it is a mistake to assume that a more rules-complex system is either inferior, or suited ONLY for less skillful GMs. Some of the best GMs I've ever seen run with both d20 systems of all sorts, as well as systems like Paranoia and Call of Cthulhu. One I know ran CoC as the most rules light game you've ever seen, because he ran it without even having read the rules.  And the questions aren't as simple as "who goes first" or death from one save; it's usually more like, "what do you mean my fighter who was raised in the military can't drill-instruct?" or "why doesn't my wizard know a darned thing about planar cosmology?" Without a GM that doesn't realize how far he can bend the system as needed, and do so in a way that keeps his player's trust, _then a Rules-Light system appears to be a rules-confining system_. 



> BTW:
> 
> *Father Flagellent*
> 18th level Cleric (OD&D)
> 
> Yeah, that's the whole character and he took me all of two minutes to create. I'm not even going to attempt to make a 3.5 version!




If I abbreviated several of the sections (such as saving throws, spells, and combat bonuses) then a 3E character would look relatively pithy, too. An OD&D character will be a shorter stat block, for sure, but his story is not told in that stat block, either -- like whether that 17 CHA means he is a leader of men, or whether he's just a slick-talker (not everyone is both), or whether despite his 11 DEX he is a skilled climber, or can tie a decent sailor's knot, or is a world-class cook, etc. All these things with a good GM are explainable -- but it goes to group dynamic, system preference, and just plain quality of the DM to whether they ARE explained or not. And speaking from personal experience, there are just as many average GM's now as there were 20 years ago.


----------



## RyanD

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> 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?




<ASBESTOS>

Many moons ago, I suggested reasons that Open Gaming would be embraced by the market.  As a result, I was excoriated for daring to suggest that the simple act of having many different RPG systems was a Bad Thing, and that the OGL/D20 project was A Secret Plan to Monopolize All of RPG Publishing.

Rather than restating, allow me to quote myself:

(from: http://www.enworld.org/article.php?a=1)

I set up the problem thusly:

"The downside here is that I believe that one of the reasons that the RPG as a category has declined so much from the early 90's relates to the proliferation of systems. Every one of those different game systems creates a "bubble" of market inefficiency; the cumulative effect of all those bubbles has proven to be a massive downsizing of the marketplace. I have to note, highlight, and reiterate: The problem is not competitive product, the problem is competitive systems. I am very much for competition and for a lot of interesting and cool products."

And this was my statement of intent vis-a-vis Open Gaming to address this problem:

"The logical conclusion says that reducing the "cost" to other people to publishing and supporting the core D&D game to zero should eventually drive support for all other game systems to the lowest level possible in the market, create customer resistance to the introduction of new systems, and the result of all that "support" redirected to the D&D game will be to steadily increase the number of people who play D&D, thus driving sales of the core books. This is a feedback cycle -- the more effective the support is, the more people play D&D. The more people play D&D, the more effective the support is.

The other great effect of Open Gaming should be a rapid, constant improvement in the quality of the rules. With lots of people able to work on them in public, problems with math, with ease of use, of variance from standard forms, etc. should all be improved over time. The great thing about Open Gaming is that it is interactive -- someone figures out a way to make something work better, and everyone who uses that part of the rules is free to incorporate it into their products. Including us. So D&D as a game should benefit from the shared development of all the people who work on the Open Gaming derivative of D&D."

</ASBESTOS>

It would be very fair to say that the implications of those statements are that one of the purposes of the OGL was to make the experience of playing an RPG more fun.  I hope that, long term, that proves to be true.

=====

PS:  This is one of those areas of the early period of the OGL process where I am often accused of "rewriting history" - mostly because so many people read the criticisms of things I wrote, rather than the actual things I did write, and when they hear me defend those writings today, it appears as though I've backtracked.  Luckily (for me) Eric Noah (and now Morrus) have never removed those interviews and they're available as historical reference to anyone who chooses to read the primary source material in question.


----------



## dcas

Psion said:
			
		

> I think John lays it on pretty thick in the unsupported assertion department:
> 
> I'm wondering what statitistical study he drew this from.
> 
> Rollyeyes icon, how I miss you...




He was responding to something that Mike Mearls wrote:



> I can count on half of one hand the number of people who understand d20 enough to build products for it.


----------



## Psion

dcas said:
			
		

> He was responding to something that Mike Mearls wrote:




Not that I think Mike is anywhere near quantitatively correct on that score

(and I'll repeat, because whenever I put such a qualification, people replying tend to ignore it: *Not that I think Mike is anywhere near quantitatively correct on that score*), he was referring to designers, not users.


----------



## dcas

Psion said:
			
		

> Not that I think Mike is anywhere near quantitatively correct on that score
> 
> (and I'll repeat, because whenever I put such a qualification, people replying tend to ignore it: *Not that I think Mike is anywhere near quantitatively correct on that score*), he was referring to designers, not users.




I don't think he's correct, either, and I don't think John Nephew thought he was correct. I think he (Nephew) was merely making a rhetorical point. It's hard to argue that 3.x D&D is the greatest game ever if there's hardly a soul to be found who can design for it. Or that one needs a degree in a scientific field to be able to design for it!


----------



## dcas

RyanD said:
			
		

> <ASBESTOS>
> 
> <snip>
> 
> </ASBESTOS>




Just goes to show what I've always said: the OGL causes lung cancer.


----------



## Gentlegamer

dcas said:
			
		

> I don't think he's correct, either, and I don't think John Nephew thought he was correct. I think he (Nephew) was merely making a rhetorical point. It's hard to argue that 3.x D&D is the greatest game ever if there's hardly a soul to be found who can design for it. Or that one needs a degree in a scientific field to be able to design for it!



I was about to say something similar.


----------



## Psion

dcas said:
			
		

> I don't think he's correct, either, and I don't think John Nephew thought he was correct. I think he (Nephew) was merely making a rhetorical point.




It tends to weaken rhetorical points when you create a functional strawman of what you are replying to.


----------



## John Morrow

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> 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.




FYI, the scope of my anecdotal claim was "often".  If I qualified everything I said with "in my opinion", "in my experience", or "I think", the size of my posts would be even large and I've already received complaints that I'm writing novels.  I suppose I should also mention that I was talking about the mechanical resolution portion of running a game and what I said doesn't necessarily conflict with what Ryan Dancey said.

What really slows a game down (in my experience, in my opinion, I think, etc.) is _detail_.  My group can run fairly fast combats using the Hero System or D&D 3.5 because we often strip out detail.  We don't keep careful track of Endurance in Hero.  There are things I don't bother with in D&D 3.5.  The fewer variables you plug into an equation, the faster the equation is to solve.  To successfully use a rule-light system (and avoid the "Mother May I?" or "Twenty Questions" problems) is to keep the detail and situational modifiers simple and coarse.  

No, you can't explicitly feint in combat because your character is assumed to be using feints as part of their attack when appropriate for their skill level.  No, you can't get a "plus" because you're trash talking your opponent or your description of your attack was really vivid.  No, you don't get a "minus" because the ground is muddy or you tossed some coins in the air.  As soon as you start factoring in details, either as part of the rules or described to and factored in with the GM, the game slows down.  What I think Ryan Dancey was claiming is that the process of negotiating the details of a particular task resolution with the GM can be as time consuming as figuring it out with the rules.  And in my own experience, what negates much of the benefit of not looking up the rules is the bottleneck of the GM as the arbiter.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> 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.




Correcting for DM ability and the detail level at which the game is being run.  There is also a style issues that I think play a big role in the assumptions people bring to this debate.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> 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?




For the record, before we started using a modified version of Fudge, my group primarily used homebrew systems designed by the GM (or group) so the GMs were literally both GM and game designer.  Our heavily modified version of Fudge is often a mix of Fudge and our last generation homebrew systems.  So, yes, I can understand how GMs who are not on-the-fly game designers could have trouble doing what my group does.  In fact, if you are good at assessing things on-the-fly and your players like your on-the-fly calls, you don't even need rules or dice, and if you want to use dice for surprise all you really need is a rule like "high rolls are good, low rolls are bad".  My group can and has run one-shot games like that.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> 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 don't think that looking at this in terms of "maturity", "intelligence", "trust", or "evolution".  That leads to the same-ol' judgementalism that runs rampant in all discussions of role-playing styles which inevitably turn into some variation of, "My way of role-playing is more mature/intelligent/highly evolved than your immature/simple/primative way of playing."  Once the discussion goes down that road, it becomes impossible to communicate because it becomes personal and more about twisting everything to fit the theory than really finding out what's going on.

Let's step back from that.  

My group doesn't have a maturity problem, an intelligence problem, a creativity problem, a trust problem, or an evolution problem and we're not afraid to try different things.  Our problems with rule-light systems, when we have them, are caused by the play style of many people in our group and insurmountable differences in our assessments of reality when we GM.  Because of that, a certain amount of complexity seems to improve the quality of our games.  Our challenge is finding the level of complexity that's "just right".



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> 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).




Out of curiosity, do your group play world-based games or story-based games?



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> 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. :\




I think that's true of one segment of the hobby.  I also think D&D 3e's complex rules drive a certain segment of gamers away from the hobby.  I think the mistake many people make is that they assume that everyone plays for the same reason and has the same ideals.  That's not true.  Heavy rules serve certain ideals better than light rules do, and vice-versa.  Each also sacrifices certain benefits that some styles value more than others.


----------



## John Morrow

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> The reason I'm curious about it is that I could see there being far more disagreements in perception (or however you want to phrase AOR) with things like interacting with NPCs. I mean, a pit's a pit, you jump it or you don't, but people are very complex things to interact with.




The complexity is what makes interacting with NPCs _less_ of an issue for many people.  Yes, a pit is a pit and you jump it or you don't but people have very rigid opinions (based on real world experience, guesses, or genre expectations) about how wide of a pit a person should be able to jump or what happens if a person fails to jump a pit of a certain depth.  Most people aren't as certain about how a person might react to a certain line of discussion or a certain request, thus there is a lot more flexibility before the GM's assessment of reality leaves the bounds of any of the players' assessments of reality.



			
				SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> Is part of it perhaps that when it comes to NPC reactions, players just go "OK, this I cede to GM fiat" and roll with it?




When it comes to NPC reactions, I think it's often because there is a wider range of behavior that people allow for in their assessment of reality and because players expect the behavior of people to be based on more unknowns.  But that doesn't mean that players can't and don't call a GM on NPC behavior that seems wrong, either because the PCs know the NPC really well (and the characterization suddenly seems "out of character" -- much as you are more likely to notice a friend acting strangely than a stranger) or because the GM has the NPC react in a way that falls outside of the players' assessments of reality for the expected range of behavior for a person in the same situation as the NPC.  I've seen players question why NPCs won't surrender, for example, or why an NPC had a sudden shift in behavior.

Ultimately, GM fiat isn't a problem unless the players notice it.  In my experience, GM biases can be noticed by the players (and can be tested for by clever players) and once they are noticed, they can change the nature of a game.  And the more subjective a GM's calls, the more likely it is that biases will creep in.



			
				SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> I ask partially because I'm fascinated that so many rules-heavy systems are either rules-light or no rules at all for things like character-to-character interaction, and partially because I have a group where the one thing the players are most likely to battle with me about is how a NPC might respond to something. (Okay, part of that's due to the fact that we have shared ownership and authorship of NPCs, but it's still relevant.)




Is part of the reason why you are most likely to battle with how an NPC might responsd because you _don't_ have rules to deal with character-to-character interactions?

My group rarely has shared authorship of NPCs.  In cases where I've created background NPCs and the GM's portrayal didn't fit my expectations, I've tried to roll with it for the sake of game harmony, though I'll rarely create such NPCs for one of the GMs in my group because our assessment of things is inevitably too different for it to work out right.  In the cases where we co-GM (two GMs running one game at the same time) GMs generally own the NPC that they play so that the players don't have to experience a split personality as the NPC gets played differently by each GM.


----------



## John Morrow

Ourph said:
			
		

> This is why I think that rules-lite vs. rules-heavy almost always makes significantly less impact on how safe or comfortable the players feel than how good the social contract and group interpersonal communication skills are.




In my own anecdotal experience, that's not the case.  In my experience, rule-light vs. rule-heavy has to do with the style of the participants, the length of the game, and the detail level of the game.  Certain styles, campaign lengths, and detail levels seem to be better suited by one or the other.  We don't have a "comfort" problem (I am starting to really hate the word "comfort" in all of it's variations because it's become a soft way to claim that a person or group has some sort of unatural and embarassing psychological hang-up).  We don't have an interpersonal communications skills problem.  Our social contract is just fine.  

By the way, I answered your poll about the GM assigning situational modifiers as saying that I'm OK with it so long as they are applied equally to PC and NPC.  That's a stylistic answer, not a trust or deep-seated psychological hang-up answer.  My own sense of verisimiltude and suspension of disbelief depends on my not feeling like my character is starring in The Truman Show.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> In any game that follows the standard RPG model, there are going to be significant instances where the referee/GM/DM/CK/whatever has to make decisions that significantly impact the game world and, as a result, the PCs (there are a few games where all players share the powers of the GM, which have their own issues).




And I think the mistake you keep making is that you assume that every decision that a GM makes that impacts a game world is equivalent.  That's not true.  If the GM decides that the sky is purple, that's not the same as deciding that an NPC doesn't like the PCs, that a PC can't jump across a 20 foot chasm, or deciding that a PC that falls trying to leap a 20 foot chasm dies instantly.  Nor is it the same for the GM to decide that a chasm is 20 feet wide as it is for the GM to decide how hard it is for the PCs to jump it.  If you can't see that distinction, I suspect that's a style issue.  

For certain styles of play, there is no difference between the two because a GM puts the 20 foot chasm in front of the players to create an obstacle of a certain difficulty.  With other styles of play, that's not necessarily the case and a 20 foot chasm might be there simply because it's a logical feature of the game world.  In fact, a dungeon can feel very different if every challenge is crafted to provide a certain challenge to the PCs than a dungeon that simply makes sense for the setting.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> For players to feel some comfort level, the GM has to either 1) share a fairly similar outlook on how the game world works with the players, meaning his decisions mesh pretty closely with what they expect; or 2) consistently and actively engage in communication with the players - letting them know how he sees things and listening to their ideas about how they perceive the game world working.




In my experience, in the absence of (1), (2) is very time consuming.  Thus it's not a "comfort" problem but a tedium and effort problem.  It's a pain in the neck.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> While I'm sure that having a pre-packaged Assessment of Reality provided in the rules makes it easier for some groups to reach consensus, I still maintain that those groups (if the necessity arose) could probably do the exact same thing on their own, without the benefit of a pre-packaged AOR - and that groups who seem unable to establish a shared AOR with a game that comes without a pre-packaged one would generally run into the same problem even if they were playing a game that provided one for them.




And here I think you are missing the point because you want to get a certain solution.  It's not a matter of what a group _can_ do but how they can get the best game on balance once you count up all the benefits and problems.  Of course my group _can_ run a game with no rules except "high rolls are good".  Heck, I've even role-played with no rules at all, flipping a coin when I needed a randomizer.  _Can_ I do it?  Sure.  But the "pre-packaged AOR' provided by a more complicated set of rules is, in my experience, an easier and better solution.  

On what basis do you make the claim that groups who have trouble establishing a shared AOR in a rule-light game that doesn't provide much of one won't have an easier time if they have a pre-packaged AOR provided by a more complicated rule system?  Not only is that counter-intuitive (Why wouldn't being provided an AOR help a group that has trouble establishing their own?) but it defies my own long personal experience designing systems and experimenting with different levels of system complexity.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> IME, if the communication between players and GM is good, a shared AOR usually just happens.  If communication is bad, no matter how many aids the rules provide to help the group toward that goal, a shared AOR is very difficult to achieve.




And in my experience, that's just not true.  Neither part of your claim, in fact.  If the group has an AOR problem, why do you assume that the rules providing an AOR won't help?  Apply what you are saying beyond the narrow subject of role-playing and ask yourself if it really makes any sense.  Would you really argue that following a software development methology makes no difference and that programmers would be better off just winging it?  Do you really think a baseball game would work work just as well if the umpires got to make up the rules on-the-fly?  Do you really think the roads would be just as safe without formal traffic laws providing a shared set of rules for driving for everyone? 

In fact, if what you say is really true, then why use any rules at all?  Why not simply use "high rolls are good and low rolls are bad" as your only rule or, heck, just let the GM make it all up as they go?  And if some rules are useful or helpful, why is it difficult to imagine that more rules might be more useful or more helpful in at least some situations?


----------



## The Shaman

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> All Dancy did was replace subject bias with experimenter bias. If there were a way to do a double blind experiment with different game systems, that would be something. Without a double blind experiment, all we're left with is a lot bias.



Quoted for trufery.


----------



## Andre

RyanD said:
			
		

> The other great effect of Open Gaming should be a rapid, constant improvement in the quality of the rules. With lots of people able to work on them in public, problems with math, with ease of use, of variance from standard forms, etc. should all be improved over time. The great thing about Open Gaming is that it is interactive -- someone figures out a way to make something work better, and everyone who uses that part of the rules is free to incorporate it into their products. Including us. So D&D as a game should benefit from the shared development of all the people who work on the Open Gaming derivative of D&D."




In theory, this seems like it would work well. In practice, not so much.

First, these rules are, by definition, not part of the core books (until an updated version is released), so I now have to keep track of other books - not for the occasional item or monster, but for rules of gameplay. 

Second, many such third-party rules are not well playtested. Such rules may indeed provide some benefit over some core rules, but they may also cause problems with others. So now I not only have to track these additional rules, I have to create my own house rules to govern their interaction with the core rules. 

Third, it's difficult to require players adhere to rules that are in books the players don't even own. It's hard enough to get some players to buy even the PHB - getting them to use the psionic rules from three different publications by a d20 publisher doesn't seem fair. 

Frankly, it's easier all around to just tell the players to use the core books, plus one or two other books, and nothing else. If a player wants to use something from another source, he/she can always ask, but typically having too many sources for game rules causes far more problems than the new rules solve.

Earlier in another thread I asked what designers should do about rules creep. As part of your answer you suggested that gamers simply refuse to buy all the new rulebooks the publishers (including WOTC) keep throwing at us. But if we don't buy these products, then how will the new rules gain sufficient notoriety to actually improve the system?


----------



## Rasyr

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I don't disagree with you.  But since this is a d20 website, most people use the term "rules light" to simply refer to games "lighter than 3e".



At this point, that would include Synnibarr, right?


----------



## Ourph

John Morrow said:
			
		

> By the way, I answered your poll about the GM assigning situational modifiers as saying that I'm OK with it so long as they are applied equally to PC and NPC.  That's a stylistic answer, not a trust or deep-seated psychological hang-up answer.  My own sense of verisimiltude and suspension of disbelief depends on my not feeling like my character is starring in The Truman Show.




Thanks for voting.  That's actually the option I voted for as well.



> And I think the mistake you keep making is that you assume that every decision that a GM makes that impacts a game world is equivalent.  That's not true.  If the GM decides that the sky is purple, that's not the same as deciding that an NPC doesn't like the PCs, that a PC can't jump across a 20 foot chasm, or deciding that a PC that falls trying to leap a 20 foot chasm dies instantly.  Nor is it the same for the GM to decide that a chasm is 20 feet wide as it is for the GM to decide how hard it is for the PCs to jump it.  If you can't see that distinction, I suspect that's a style issue.




I suspect you're right about it being a style difference.  The decisions aren't absolutely equivalent, but I think I see the differences as significantly smaller than you and some of the other people on this thread.  From my POV, the things that 3.x D&D asks a DM to "make up" about the game world are at least as significant as whether an NPC has a good reaction to my PC or how hard it is to jump a 10ft pit.  The fact that all game systems that involve a DM/GM/CK/etc. ask the referee to create and adjudicate the fantasy world at some level (and as a result, trust that the referee will do a good enough job of it to make the game fun) seems more significant to me than how much guidance in terms of hard numbers the rules actually give that person.  It seems to me the difference is only really significant from the referee's side and that, for players, the difference is more qualitative (what kind of judgement calls the DM is making) rather than quantitative (how much the DM's judgement comes into play).



> Of course my group _can_ run a game with no rules except "high rolls are good".  Heck, I've even role-played with no rules at all, flipping a coin when I needed a randomizer.  _Can_ I do it?  Sure.  But the "pre-packaged AOR' provided by a more complicated set of rules is, in my experience, an easier and better solution.




I think that's exactly my point.  The pre-packaged AOR makes the process go faster for your group, who are already pretty adept at finding a common AOR anyway.  That's exactly what I would expect - and one of the great strengths of rules heavier games.  



> On what basis do you make the claim that groups who have trouble establishing a shared AOR in a rule-light game that doesn't provide much of one won't have an easier time if they have a pre-packaged AOR provided by a more complicated rule system?




Personal anecdotal experience only.  Unfortunately, quite a bit of personal anecdotal experience.



> Not only is that counter-intuitive (Why wouldn't being provided an AOR help a group that has trouble establishing their own?) but it defies my own long personal experience designing systems and experimenting with different levels of system complexity.




I would say all RPGs require the group to reach some level of consensus.  If a group is bad at that, I expect them to be bad at it no matter what kind of game they are playing.  IME, the rules-heavy systems CAN help by giving a pre-established base-line, but they can also hinder by giving players a sense that the rules are going to do the work of reaching consensus for them.  If a group has a difficult time with communication in the first place, playing a rules-heavy game can simply be an excuse not to communicate about their expectations AT ALL, leading to the same types of problems they experienced with a rules-lite game.

Again, I'm not saying this is "THE WAY IT IS".  I'm sure there are plenty of groups where that's not the case.   It's just that, in my experience, it can be one of the pitfalls (and disproves the theory that rules-heavy games always make it easier to reach a shared AOR).



> And in my experience, that's just not true.  Neither part of your claim, in fact.  If the group has an AOR problem, why do you assume that the rules providing an AOR won't help?




I'm not saying it can't help, just that it's not a guarantee.



> In fact, if what you say is really true, then why use any rules at all?  Why not simply use "high rolls are good and low rolls are bad" as your only rule or, heck, just let the GM make it all up as they go?  And if some rules are useful or helpful, why is it difficult to imagine that more rules might be more useful or more helpful in at least some situations?




Here you're trying to put me back in the position of defending rules-lite vs. rules-heavy.  I'm certainly not saying that RPGs are somehow better or more fun or more playable the fewer rules they have.  How complex a system to use is a matter of taste, for GM and players.

I'll readily admit that, for some groups - maybe even the majority of roleplaying groups - a more defined system is helpful in establishing a shared AOR.  But I don't believe that a more defined system is necessarily a guaranteed "fix" for a group that has problems coming to a consensus on their AOR - because there are only so many things the rules can cover.  There's always going to be a significant part of the game left up to definition and adjudication by the GM in any RPG and (even for rules-heavy systems) I think the quantity and impact of things left up to the GM greatly outdistances the codified stuff provided by the rules.

To put it in concrete terms, let's say a rules-lite system covers 10% of the possible decisions a GM might have to make about the world while playing the game and a rules-heavy game covers 60%.  I honestly can't see a qualitative difference between a game where I'm frustrated by 40% of the GM's decisions and a game where I'm frustrated by 90% of the GM's decisions.  Both would leave me miserable and wanting not to participate in the game.  Likewise, I suspect if another GM ran a game where the 40% of decisions left in his care were resolved in a way that I enjoyed and trusted, that if that number were expanded to 90%, I'd still be enjoying myself - because obviously the GM and I are pretty much on the same page as far as expectations about the game.  YMMV.


----------



## Akrasia

Psion said:
			
		

> It tends to weaken rhetorical points when you create a functional strawman of what you are replying to.




I don't understand this.  *Mearls* claimed that, after 5 years of existence, only 2-3 people were competent at designing for d20.  He also claimed that D&D was unquestionably "the best" system out now.

In reply, Nephew's point was that *if* D&D was indeed "the best system" out there, it seemed strange that only 2-3 people could design competently for it.

It was a pretty effective point IMO.


----------



## Akrasia

RyanD said:
			
		

> <ASBESTOS>...
> 
> "The logical conclusion says that reducing the "cost" to other people to publishing and supporting the core D&D game to zero should eventually drive support for all other game systems to the lowest level possible in the market, create customer resistance to the introduction of new systems, and the result of all that "support" redirected to the D&D game will be to steadily increase the number of people who play D&D, thus driving sales of the core books. This is a feedback cycle -- the more effective the support is, the more people play D&D. The more people play D&D, the more effective the support is.
> ...
> </ASBESTOS>
> ....




The fatal flaw with this 'strategy' is that it assumes that 3e D&D (or, more generally, d20) can accommodate everything that different gamers want from their RPG sessions.

It does not, and cannot.  

Hence it is not surprising that -- following the collapse of the 'd20 bubble' in recent years -- a number of new non-d20 games are being published. 

It looks like the strategy of driving "support for all other game systems to the lowest level possible in the market" has not been entirely successful.

Thank heavens!


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Akrasia said:
			
		

> The fatal flaw with this 'strategy' is that it assumes that 3e D&D (or, more generally, d20) can accommodate everything that different gamers want from their RPG sessions.



That quote doesn't say anything about accomodating *everything* each different gamer wants.

Plus, "the lowest *possible* level" doesn't exclude the event that other systems get published in the future.


----------



## BryonD

Faraer said:
			
		

> I don't agree with that at all. Inexperienced players who are introduced to RPGs as souped-up boardgames or videogames expect structure, and are frequently put off roleplaying when it comes in 300-page books which have no precedent in their experience. Inexperienced players who are introduced to RPGs in a roleplaying-over-rules way have no such expectation, and usually, in my experience, no such problem.




It's funny, but it took the DMing for kids thread to remind me that I do run one rules lite game.
The one I run for my 7 year old daughter.


----------



## Turjan

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I don't understand this.  *Mearls* claimed that, after 5 years of existence, only 2-3 people were competent at designing for d20.  He also claimed that D&D was unquestionably "the best" system out now.
> 
> In reply, Nephew's point was that *if* D&D was indeed "the best system" out there, it seemed strange that only 2-3 people could design competently for it.
> 
> It was a pretty effective point IMO.



That fits with the fact that even WotC books are full of errors in statblocks. Even the inventor of the game has difficulties to master it fully .


----------



## Akrasia

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> That quote doesn't say anything about accomodating *everything* each different gamer wants.




Fair enough.  I should have qualified my original comment.

But it is clear that the goal of the OGL was to drive most non-D&D games out of the market.  This goal assumes that D&D (or d20 more generally) could accommodate the interests of the vast majority of gamers.



			
				Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Plus, "the lowest *possible* level" doesn't exclude the event that other systems get published in the future.




My point was that many companies have moved *away* from d20 (and many d20 companies have gone out of business).  *More* non-d20 games are being published these days.  Hence the strategy of marginalizing non-d20 games does not appear to have been successful.  (Although I suppose that one could claim that the publication of these games is compatible with support for them being at "the lowest possible level" -- but I doubt that.)


----------



## Silverleaf

Akrasia has a very good point.
And I've no idea if Mearls is right or not, but if he is then it sort of reminds me of the issues surrounding the new FreeBSD 5.x SMP code.  Only a handful of people in the world know that stuff backwards and forwards, because the design is so incredibly convoluted.  In contrast, DragonflyBSD (a FBSD 4.x spinoff project) went for a much simpler and decoupled approach, which will most likely result in a kernel that scales better and has less bugs in the long run.
Frankly though, after seeing the 3.5 rules, I don't care if he's right or wrong.  I can tell the system is way too convoluted for /me/, and that's really all that matters in the end.


----------



## Campbell

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I don't understand this. *Mearls* claimed that, after 5 years of existence, only 2-3 people were competent at designing for d20. He also claimed that D&D was unquestionably "the best" system out now.
> 
> In reply, Nephew's point was that *if* D&D was indeed "the best system" out there, it seemed strange that only 2-3 people could design competently for it.
> 
> It was a pretty effective point IMO.




Although hyperbole was involved I believe Mearls was indicating that he believed that few of the current band of d20 designers are capable of doing design work for d20, and that a number of those that are capable of doing d20 design work do not participate in such an endeavor publicly because they have more profitable avenues for their skillsets.

While I do not believe that Mearls' assesment is completely correct, I do believe there is an element of truth to Mike's observations. Like you I believe that the exodus of numerous companies away from the banner is a 'Good Thing' although for slightly different reasons. What I'm seeing is a group of designers that never really wanted to design d20 products moving back to an area that is within their forte, designing games that fit their expectations of what a roleplaying game should look like, rather than trying to force their design philosophies on a game system that is not fitting for the type of work that they'd rather do. Additionally I see what Mike is talking about in reguard to the brain drain all the time in my experience checking out numerous campaign websites for both Fantasy HERO and D&D where I see design work that is evidently much more solid than a lot of what I see out there on the d20 market as it exists today.

Addendum
Of course, I have no more knowledge of game publishing market than any other gamer. I also do not presume to speak for Mr. Mearls. I am merely relating my interpretation of his remarks, which retains some favorable bias since Mearls has produced outstanding material that I make almost weekly use out of.


----------



## Turjan

Akrasia said:
			
		

> My point was that many companies have moved *away* from d20 (and many d20 companies have gone out of business).  *More* non-d20 games are being published these days.  Hence the strategy of marginalizing non-d20 games does not appear to have been successful.  (Although I suppose that one could claim that the publication of these games is compatible with support for them being at "the lowest possible level" -- but I doubt that.)



I'm afraid that you are not right as far as the failure of marginalizing the non-d20 games goes. The crisis of the third party d20 publishers was followed by a crisis of many other, non-d20 game companies. GURPS seems to do fine, but others, like HERO Games or WW, seem to have slight problems. The very small game companies are not more than a ripple on the water.


----------



## Psion

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I don't understand this.  *Mearls* claimed that, after 5 years of existence, only 2-3 people were competent at designing for d20.  He also claimed that D&D was unquestionably "the best" system out now.
> 
> In reply, Nephew's point was that *if* D&D was indeed "the best system" out there, it seemed strange that only 2-3 people could design competently for it.
> 
> It was a pretty effective point IMO.




Well it might have been. If he said designers.

He said users.

You are presuming to guess what he really meant. I don't find an statement that wasn't made, or was gutted by being mispoke, to be too "punchy."

If he really meant that at all.


----------



## MerricB

The intent of the d20 System is to make D&D-like systems much harder to sell successfully when they differ markedly from D&D 3E.

(The case in point is Palladium).

C&C seems to be to take some of the best bits of the d20 System (namely Task Resolution), and thus the difficulty of learning C&C is lesser to those already familiar with 3e. (The converse is likely also true).

The real effect of the OGL is to create a pool of reusable mechanics, thus lessening the need to come up with new ones just for the sake of it, and thus increasing the difficulty of learning a new game.

When a designer creates a new game, he or she now has the choice of using the familiar mechanic of d20 - and thus making the new game more accessible to existing gamers - or of doing something completely different.

In the instances when something different is actually the right thing to do, then there is no problem. d20 doesn't detract from that.

However, there is a real barrier to doing a D&D-like game that _doesn't_ take advantage of the d20 system.

Cheers!


----------



## Campbell

The following is what Mearls actually said.


			
				mearls said:
			
		

> [font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]The first wave of print d20 companies are mostly gasping for air. Simply put, with one exception they failed. Nobody in the RPG business understands how open source works. I can count on half of one hand the number of people who understand d20 enough to *build* products for it.





Now the question becomes what exactly Mearls meant by "build products". One interpretation might be that Mearls was talking about the quality of design work being done within the 'd20 industry'. Another, and in my opinion more interesting, interpretation could be that Mearls was talking about the types of business decisions d20 companies have been making since 2000, as in how product lines are conceived, developed, and marketed in the aggregate. This is also a stronger position to take. The question then becomes what should d20 companies do on a strategic rather than tactical level to both serve the market and reliably perform at higher profit margins. One area that I would like to see d20/OGL companies improve upon is the use of other companies' OGC as a jumpiing off point where previous work has been done.  I believe there is a fair amount  of unnecesarry reinventing the wheel goiing on.
[/font]


----------



## Psion

Akrasia said:
			
		

> My point was that many companies have moved *away* from d20 (and many d20 companies have gone out of business).




This is true, but consider that it got a lot in the business who remain in the business. It's primarily people who put out crap who aren't publishing anymore.

Considering the mounds of d20 material that were out there a few years ago, there was nowhere to go but down. So I am not sure this says anything significant about the game or strategy itself. Especially considering that the levels to which d20 ebraced EXCEEDED the expectations of the WotC.



> *More* non-d20 games are being published these days.




More than what?



> Hence the strategy of marginalizing non-d20 games does not appear to have been successful.




Perhaps not; that would be unrealistic IMO. But was that ever the strategy? The closest I heard was a few high quality systems dominating the market. I don't think it was ever seriously considered that all non-d20 games would be marginalized.


----------



## Akrasia

Psion said:
			
		

> Well it might have been. If he said designers.
> 
> He said users.
> 
> You are presuming to guess what he really meant. I don't find an statement that wasn't made, or was gutted by being mispoke, to be too "punchy."
> 
> If he really meant that at all.




Here is what John wrote:

"How can D&D now be the best game in the RPG world, if no statistically significant portion of its users really grok it, even after 5 years of play? If essentially no one in the subset of players/GMs who became d20 writers really understand the game, how many of those who didn't become writers do? Or is just that they only can grok it well enough to utilize published materials written by the select handful that truly understand how the machinery works underneath the hood?"

So, yeah, you might be right -- perhaps I did read too much into his comments.   OTOH, I *do* see how his claim here follows from what *Mearls* stated.


----------



## Akrasia

Psion said:
			
		

> ...More than what? ...




More than a few years ago.

We have a new version of WFRP out now, that appears to be doing quite well by all reports.  GURPS 4e also appears to be doing quite well.  According to Nephew, Ars Magica 5e is thriving.  And now Mongoose is planning to publish a new version of Runequest (the main rival to D&D back in the day).

I'm no "industry insider", but the range of non-d20 options seems much healthier now than merely two years ago.

(And hey, I've got nothing against the OGL.  I like both True20 and C&C -- both games made possible by the OGL.)



			
				Psion said:
			
		

> ...
> Perhaps not; that would be unrealistic IMO. But was that ever the strategy? The closest I heard was a few high quality systems dominating the market. I don't think it was ever seriously considered that all non-d20 games would be marginalized.




You might be right.  I interpreted the following quote somewhat differently:



			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> " ... should eventually drive support for all other game systems to the lowest level possible in the market ...




I guess I would think that the "lowest level possible" would be lower than what is available now.  But that's just my interpretation.


----------



## Akrasia

Turjan said:
			
		

> I'm afraid that you are not right as far as the failure of marginalizing the non-d20 games goes. The crisis of the third party d20 publishers was followed by a crisis of many other, non-d20 game companies. GURPS seems to do fine, but others, like HERO Games or WW, seem to have slight problems. The very small game companies are not more than a ripple on the water.




You might be right about this.  And I'm certainly no "industry insider".

But WFRP 2e seems to be doing reasonably well.  A new version of Runequest wil be coming out soon.  Ars Magica 5e is a success (acc. to Atlas president John Nephew).  So not everything looks bleak in the non-d20 world.


----------



## RyanD

Andre said:
			
		

> Earlier in another thread I asked what designers should do about rules creep. As part of your answer you suggested that gamers simply refuse to buy all the new rulebooks the publishers (including WOTC) keep throwing at us. But if we don't buy these products, then how will the new rules gain sufficient notoriety to actually improve the system?




They don't have to gain sufficient noteriety in the player community.  They have to gain sufficient notoriety in the design community.  Even better:  They have to gain sufficient notoriety at Wizards of the Coast.

That may be easier than you think.  A lot of people at WotC play a lot of RPGs, and they actively look at lots of RPG products.  I suspect that they have dissected in some detail most of the top-selling D20 products, and probably a lot of the top selling PDF only products.

I also think there's a difference between "a whole bunch of feats" and a tightly focused design effort to improve a specific area of the game.  (Note in my example, I suggested source material for unqiue cultural reference).  Innovating in areas that D&D is weak in (mass combat, non-combat challenge resoution, environments other than forests and caves, etc.) allows a DM/player group who needs that resource to add it without major disruptions to the rest of the game, and it is the kind of thing likely to pique WotC's interest.

I also suspect that we're nearing a time when one or more groups push to make a publisher independent "reference platform" for D20 that can be produced as a PDF document and revised more often than the core D&D rulebooks are.  A quarterly "build" akin to the distribution of Linux would do nicely.  Once that process starts, and a significant design community aggregates around it, that "reference platform" becomes a one-stop-shop for WotC as they consider things to add to the core of D&D.  Such a reference platform would be designed to be a playable D20 RPG that could be used (per the OGL) by any publisher who expressed an interest, which means that such an effort may have a commercial application to provide some kind of funding to support a higher-than-volunteer-only level of development.

That's the kind of thing the OGL enables that we didn't have before.


----------



## MerricB

Akrasia said:
			
		

> More than a few years ago.
> 
> We have a new version of WFRP out now, that appears to be doing quite well by all reports.  GURPS 4e also appears to be doing quite well.  According to Nephew, Ars Magica 5e is thriving.  And now Mongoose is planning to publish a new version of Runequest (the main rival to D&D back in the day).
> 
> I'm no "industry insider", but the range of non-d20 options seems much healthier now than merely two years ago.
> 
> I guess I would think that the "lowest level possible" would be lower than what is available now.  But that's just my interpretation.




Ask yourself how much of the redesigned systems are due in large part to the competition that 3e has created? When you have substantial redesign of GURPS, WFRP and Storyteller, that indicates that there is a real pressure for getting those games as good as they can be.

Having a strong d20 System really makes people think: Do we want to use d20? There is now a choice for both players and designers that, in the old days, was "I want to use AD&D for the system but I can't because of copyright laws, so I'll publish Palladium (or any one of another of D&D copies)".

Such can still happen today, but because of the OGL, you can explicitly use parts of the d20 system and thus have people already familiar with it.

Cheers!


----------



## Turjan

Akrasia said:
			
		

> You might be right about this.  And I'm certainly no "industry insider".
> 
> But WFRP 2e seems to be doing reasonably well.  A new version of Runequest wil be coming out soon.  Ars Magica 5e is a success (acc. to Atlas president John Nephew).  So not everything looks bleak in the non-d20 world.



WFRP with GW in the background is a worthy contender, that's right. It's good when you know upfront that you have a sufficient fanbase when you design a game and, not to forget, a publisher with deep pockets of money . 

The newest version of Runequest will come next year, and we will see whether it's worth the effort, given the fact that D&D3.x/d20 have already plundered some of its strongest parts. I'm really very curious here how different from d20 it will be . 

For games like Ars Magica, I'd say that even when the word success is used, it still means that it's a niche game; I suppose that the sales expectations are not too high from the very beginning on.


----------



## John Morrow

Ourph said:
			
		

> I suspect you're right about it being a style difference.  The decisions aren't absolutely equivalent, but I think I see the differences as significantly smaller than you and some of the other people on this thread.  From my POV, the things that 3.x D&D asks a DM to "make up" about the game world are at least as significant as whether an NPC has a good reaction to my PC or how hard it is to jump a 10ft pit.  The fact that all game systems that involve a DM/GM/CK/etc. ask the referee to create and adjudicate the fantasy world at some level (and as a result, trust that the referee will do a good enough job of it to make the game fun) seems more significant to me than how much guidance in terms of hard numbers the rules actually give that person.  It seems to me the difference is only really significant from the referee's side and that, for players, the difference is more qualitative (what kind of judgement calls the DM is making) rather than quantitative (how much the DM's judgement comes into
> play).




I think the difference can only be understood looking at how decisions are made.  

First, if the GM puts a 20 foot chasm in the setting for the purpose of providing a specific level of challenge (as opposed to putting it there for setting-based or incidental reasons), then there won't be much of a difference between the GM putting the element into the setting and the GM deciding the difficulty because they are really the same decision.  Not every GM puts elements into the game that way. 

Second, the GM will inevitably include incidental elements in the setting and if the players decide to use them, objective rules allow them to make certain assumptions about incidental elements.  As a totally hypothetical example, if my PC visits an NPC crime kingpin in his 3rd floor office with a large glass picture window behind his desk.  The NPC's lackey pulls a gun so I decide that my PC will hurl himself at the window and take the chance that he'll survive the glass and the fall.  If the game has rules for breaking through a window and falling, no GM interpretation is really necessary because the scene has already been set, even if the GM didn't anticipate that move.  Now it's entirely possible that the GM could have already decided that the window is bullet-proof or could decide that on the spot, causing the action to fail, but it makes a difference (that some players can and do detect) whether the GM makes that call for world-based reasons (a crime kingpin wouldn't sit with his back to a big window
unless it was bullet-proof) instead of story-based reasons (the GM wants the PC to be captured by the kingpins thugs for some plot purpose -- perhaps to put the PC in a giant Frosty-Freeze or something).



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> I think that's exactly my point.  The pre-packaged AOR makes the process go faster for your group, who are already pretty adept at finding a common AOR anyway.  That's exactly what I would expect - and one of the great strengths of rules heavier games.




Fair enough.  I don't play with socially disfunctional groups or players (as illustrated in the thread about throwing people out of games) so I tend to assume at least some basis ability to communicate between the participants.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> I would say all RPGs require the group to reach some level of consensus.  If a group is bad at that, I expect them to be bad at it no matter what kind of game they are playing.  IME, the rules-heavy systems CAN help by giving a pre-established base-line, but they can also hinder by giving players a sense that the rules are going to do the work of reaching consensus for them.  If a group has a difficult time with communication in the first place, playing a rules-heavy game can simply be an excuse not to communicate about their expectations AT ALL, leading to the same types of problems they experienced with a rules-lite game.




In convention games, I've seen the rules provide a common AOR despite the players not knowing each other and doing a minimum of talking.  I'll agree that this might not be idea, but I do think it can make the difference between a group being able to role-play together or not.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> I'm not saying it can't help, just that it's not a guarantee.




I'm not talking about guarantees.  I'm talking about improving the odds of success.  I think that when people don't know what to do or can't find common ground, rules and structure can at least create a functional situation.  Software development methodologies don't guarantee that a software project will succeed but they can often help a bunch of software developers who can't just work together do production work.  Yeah, those methodologies also all have a cost and all have their problems but they can tell people what to do to move ahead when they can't figure out how to move ahead on their own.  That's what rules are for.  They tell you what to do when you can't work it out on your own.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Here you're trying to put me back in the position of defending rules-lite vs. rules-heavy.  I'm certainly not saying that RPGs are somehow better or more fun or more playable the fewer rules they have.  How complex a system to use is a matter of taste, for GM and players.




Agreed.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> To put it in concrete terms, let's say a rules-lite system covers 10% of the possible decisions a GM might have to make about the world while playing the game and a rules-heavy game covers 60%.  I honestly can't see a qualitative difference between a game where I'm frustrated by 40% of the GM's decisions and a game where I'm frustrated by 90% of the GM's decisions. Both would leave me miserable and wanting not to participate in the game.




Well, I disagree.  Part of Ryan Dancey's point was that every role-player spends some percentage of their role-playing frustrated by something not going smoothly in the game.  And I think the quantitative percentage of time that a player is frustrated can have a very real qualitative effect on how much the players enjoy the game, especially if the shift is from 40% (most decisions not frustrating) to 90% (the vast majority frustrating).  Sure, 40% is a lot worse than 10% or even 0% but it's a lot better than 90% and not everyone has the opportunity to find a perfect group or game.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Likewise, I suspect if another GM ran a game where the 40% of decisions left in his care were resolved in a way that I enjoyed and trusted, that if that number were expanded to 90%, I'd still be enjoying myself - because obviously the GM and I are pretty much on the same page as far as expectations about the game.  YMMV.




The possibility that you are skipping is that you might be happy with the 40% of the decisions that the GM is trusted with in a rule-heavy game but might be unhappy with that extra 50% that will likely involve different aspects of the game.  Again, not all decisions are the same, though some styles of play make the differences more important than others.

The ideal level of rules for a particular group would leave those decisions up to the GM that the group is happy leaving up to the GM and would provide procedures to handle those situations that are either handled better by the rules or badly by the GM.  And that level, of course, will differ from group to group with no one right answer.


----------



## RyanD

Akrasia said:
			
		

> The fatal flaw with this 'strategy' is that it assumes that 3e D&D (or, more generally, d20) can accommodate everything that different gamers want from their RPG sessions.




That was never an assumption of mine and I've never stated such.  D&D (and D20) is very good at modeling a certain kind of RPG experience (a party of adventurers forms and seeks challenges and are rewarded with increases in power).  It is not well suited to many other kinds of storytelling/gaming; it cannot be all things to all people.



> Hence it is not surprising that -- following the collapse of the 'd20 bubble' in recent years -- a number of new non-d20 games are being published.
> 
> It looks like the strategy of driving "support for all other game systems to the lowest level possible in the market" has not been entirely successful.




Let's examine this assumption.  One of my long term projects is to database the entire market beat section from Comics & Games Retailer.  For those of you not in the know, this is an industry publication that tracks sales trends for most major hobby gaming categories.  Unforuntately, their data is self-reported by retailers and is not based on POS data, so it is considered to be quite suspect in specifics.  However, for the purposes of general trend analysis, espeically for marketshare leaders, it is reasonably useful.

The data for July, 1999, gives this snapshot (Descending order of unit sales, titles with no sales in previous months deleted):

All:  75.81 units

AD&D:  [19.6 units]
Vampire
RIFTS
GURPS
Deadlands
Shadowrun
Werewolf
L5R RPG
Alternity
Star Trek TNG
Mage
Star Wars RPG (WEG)
Hell On Earth (Deadlands)
Trinity/Aeon
Palladium Fantasy RPG [1.06 units]
Sailor Moon
Rolemaster
BESM
In Nomine
Mind's Eye Theater
Champions
Call of Cthulhu [.26 units]


The data for July, 2000:

All:  74.3 units

AD&D [20.9 units]
Vampire
RIFTS
GURPS
Shadowrun
Alternity
L5R RPG
Star Trek TNG
Star Wars RPG (WEG)
Deadlands
Mage 
Rolemaster [1.1 units]
7th Sea
Heavy Gear
Werewolf [.6 units]

Thus, the RPG market leaders (which accounted for at least 80% of sales in any given store) could be described as:

- D&D
- Storyteller RPGs (Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, Wraith, Changeling)
- Non D&D fantasy RPGs (Rolemaster, Palladium Fantasy RPG)
- GURPS
- Licensed SF (Star Wars, Star Trek)
- Non-licensed SF (Shadowrun, Alternity, RIFTS)
- CoC
- Deadlands
- 7th Sea
- BESM

Of this list, I would suggest that the products with a "mechanical advantage" in not being D20 games (assuming D20 had been an option from the start of the RPG era) were GURPS and BESM.  

Let me clarify.  Assuming that the unique mechanical aspects of the other games had been retained (like Sanity for CoC, the card play mechanic in Deadlands, etc.) all of those games could have been expressed as D20 games and been just as fun to play as they are in their "native" formats.  (One could argue that attempted conversions like Deadlands D20 showed this was not true, but I'd counter-argue that those conversions were all rushed in the heat of a market bubble, were written by people who were not intimately familiar with how to write for D20, and thus are not a fair indicator of what they could have been had they been "done right").

My thesis is that the differences in these games, which I maintain exist for a number of reasons other than a mechanical need to vary from D20, all made the market "inefficient" to some degree by limiting the portability of people's knowledge of how to play one game when they played another, and by segregating design talent into small slices of mecanics that could not feed back into each other smoothly to improve the overall game experience for all players.  This was, in my opinion, bad for the RPG industry.

At this point, I'd argue that we have 3 game networks that existed for mechanical advantage (or network advantage) out of about a dozen offerings.

Data for July 2005 isn't available yet.  I have data for February 2005 close at hand.  Let's look at where we were then.

All:  69.5 units

D&D [27.4]
World of Darkness (new)
D20 (Sword & Sorcery)
Rifts
D20 (Mongoose)
D20 (Star Wars)
Shadowrun
World of Darkness (old)
Call of Cthulhu
D20 (Castles & Crusades)
GURPS
D20 (L5R)
HERO
D20 (Green Ronin)
D20 (Alderac)
Exalted
D20 (Wizards of the Coast)
Lord of the Rings [1.0 units]
D20 (Privateer Press)
D20 (Holistic) [.6 units]

Summary:

- D20
- Storyteller
- RIFTS
- Shadowrun
- CoC
- GURPS
- HERO
- Lord of the Rings

Shadowrun and CoC are essentially static - they are the same games published throughout this entire timeframe.  My opinion is that they'd sell just as well if they had been D20 from the start, but they're not, and making the switch would probably do them more harm than good - people aren't playing them due to mechanical excellence.

HERO is a revival of a game with a huge network externality, and clear a mechanical advantage (similar to GURPS).

Lord of the Rings is essentially a Dead Game, and was already in March when these numbers were compiled.

Are there "fewer systems" being supported at this time?  I think the answer is clearly "yes".  

There have been two noticable new games (Ars Magica 5th and Warhammer RPG) that are not D20 and are (according to industry sources) doing quite well.  Both are games that predate the D20 era, both have large followings of players, and both are in the same boat as Shadowrun and CoC.  I doubt that either would have been launchable had they not been D20 if they were brand new.  (Although I think it is a shame that Warhammer isn't a D20 game, I'm not at all surprised that GW wouldn't let Green Ronin do it that way.)

So we've seen a move towards games that are mechanically distinct, and a move towards consolidating a lot of "genre" options (without a rational for mechanical distinctiveness) into D20.  That's exactly what I thought would happen, and I think that trend will only continue.  Now, when a publisher thinks about releasing an RPG, they have to explain why they're not using D20, and if they can't make the case, they don't get sales.

We've also got this odd new arrival, the PDF RPG.  The Forge has been great at evolving a whole bunch of new games quickly, and PDF/internet distribution has arrived to give us a new model for sales that has a whole different set of assumptions in it than I was using in 1999 when I was trying to figure out how to fix D&D and the RPG segment as a whole.  Those games are often purpose built (i.e. they're designed to do one thing really well, in a limited timeframe), and they have small, but extremely devoted followings who may or may not connect to the rest of the RPG ubernetwork.  And a lot of them are just literature and thought experiments - they appeal to people who are interested in the art and science of RPG design and don't impact many actual play groups.  So I'll cop to not anticipating the format, and admit that it has the potential to blow D20/OGL out of the water, but stand on my overall segment consolidation prediction until the day that a non D20 PDF/internet RPG starts accumulating a noticable player network.


----------



## The Shaman

RyanD said:
			
		

> Assuming that the unique mechanical aspects of the other games had been retained (like Sanity for CoC, the card play mechanic in Deadlands, etc.) all of those games could have been expressed as D20 games and been just as fun to play as they are in their "native" formats.  (One could argue that attempted conversions like Deadlands D20 showed this was not true, but I'd counter-argue that those conversions were all rushed in the heat of a market bubble, were written by people who were not intimately familiar with how to write for D20, and thus are not a fair indicator of what they could have been had they been "done right").



And how would you interpret the negative responses to d20 _Call of Cthulhu_?







			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> My thesis is that the differences in these games, which I maintain exist for a number of reasons other than a mechanical need to vary from D20, all made the market "inefficient" to some degree by limiting the portability of people's knowledge of how to play one game when they played another, and by segregating design talent into small slices of mecanics that could not feed back into each other smoothly to improve the overall game experience for all players.  This was, in my opinion, bad for the RPG industry.



If this is true, where will the next level of innovation in gaming come from? Must everyone drink the Kool-Aid to have something to contribute to gaming?







			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> Shadowrun and CoC are essentially static - they are the same games published throughout this entire timeframe.  My opinion is that they'd sell just as well if they had been D20 from the start, but they're not, and making the switch would probably do them more harm than good - people aren't playing them due to mechanical excellence.



I suppose if you define 'mechanical excellence' by market-share, this statement probably seems true enough.







			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> There have been two noticable new games (Ars Magica 5th and Warhammer RPG) that are not D20 and are (according to industry sources) doing quite well.  Both are games that predate the D20 era, both have large followings of players...



...like Dungeons and Dragons...







			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> ...and both are in the same boat as Shadowrun and CoC.  I doubt that either would have been launchable had they not been D20 if they were brand new.



One could argue that d20 would have been in the same boat without D&D branding.







			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> So we've seen a move towards games that are mechanically distinct, and a move towards consolidating a lot of "genre" options (without a rational for mechanical distinctiveness) into D20.  That's exactly what I thought would happen, and I think that trend will only continue.  Now, when a publisher thinks about releasing an RPG, they have to explain why they're not using D20, and if they can't make the case, they don't get sales.



D20 is not a monolith - the past several years have developed widely diverging implementation of the d20 mechanic - _Mutants and Masterminds_, _Blue Rose_, and _Dungeons and Dragons_ are all d20, but each has a very distinct flavor.

It's convenient if one is trying to make a case of the superiority and supremacy of the d20 mechanic to lump these games together, but I would argue this is taking oranges, grapes, and bananas and declaring their collective virtues as fruit - it may be true as far as it goes, but it glosses over a great deal of important detail.


----------



## Gentlegamer

RyanD said:
			
		

> D&D (and D20) is very good at modeling a certain kind of RPG experience (a party of adventurers forms and seeks challenges and are rewarded with increases in power).  It is not well suited to many other kinds of storytelling/gaming; it cannot be all things to all people.



Quoted for truth.


----------



## Psion

MerricB said:
			
		

> Ask yourself how much of the redesigned systems are due in large part to the competition that 3e has created? When you have substantial redesign of GURPS, WFRP and Storyteller, that indicates that there is a real pressure for getting those games as good as they can be.




Oh, absolutely. Add to that that, according to the figures quoted earlier in this thread (and the state of the bookshelves at my FLGS seem to follow) that Palladium has dropped out of the double-digit market share contenders. And even now, they have announced a new edition.

I was just thinking this the other day when I was noting the quality of products I was buying and other (including non-d20) products on the market that I think that the quality of products has gone up markedly in the last few years, in terms of both production values and playability. I also notice this in the PDF market.

Also looking at figures quoted earlier in the thread, companies that suffered slippage that were putting out what I consider to be quality product were almost universally attributable to them not being US companies and suffering due to the weak dollar.


----------



## Psion

The Shaman said:
			
		

> And how would you interpret the negative responses to d20 _Call of Cthulhu_?




I really hope your not suggesting that it was based on informed opinions? Most (in fact AFAICT, all) such deep negative hostility is from fans of the existing game who like it their way. This "people who are stuck in the system they know" thing cuts both ways.

But if you'd like, I can point you to several threads on RPGnet praising it.

(Ironically, I don't particularly think that it is the best implementation of d20, but certainly don't think it desrves the bile that gets heaps upon it, which I think stems purely from "rabid fanboy" syndrome.)


----------



## The_Universe

I think Dancey's comments are extraordinarily cogent. He's not talking about what's universally more or less fun for any particular gamer. Instead, he's talking about making a game that will balance between serving players and remaining solvent/profitable. He's talking about business, and we react as if he's critiqueing how we may or may not have fun. 

As to the initial post, however, I have to say that *in my experience* rules light systems are harder to adjudicate, and ultimately result in such extensive and codified *house rules* that I might as well have started with a system with a few more rules in order to unify player and DM expectations from the get-go. You might have had a different experience, but (if it helps you tag where I'm at) I'd rather play Shadowrun than Buffy (to choose two relative extremes).


----------



## WayneLigon

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I suppose if you define 'mechanical excellence' by market-share, this statement probably seems true enough....




The way I read his statement, people 'are playing' ShadowRun and CoC because of factors other than rules mechanics. I don't think he's saying 'people are 'not playing' SR and CoC because of the rules mechanics'.


----------



## The_Universe

> It's convenient if one is trying to make a case of the superiority and supremacy of the d20 mechanic to lump these games together, but I would argue this is taking oranges, grapes, and bananas and declaring their collective virtues as fruit - it may be true as far as it goes, but it glosses over a great deal of important detail.



Of course, I could argue the same sort of thing on a different tack - you're showing us grapes and raisins (or plums and prunes if you prefer) while telling me one is fruit and the other is meat, when despite some basic superifical differences they're not _just_ both fruit - they're the exact *same* fruit. 

Piss and moan about apples and oranges all you want, but vegetarians will eat both, and they won't eat steak no matter how much you tell them they'd like it. 

Am I taking your example to extremes? No. I'm just taking it to a logical conclusion in order to illustrate that "incompatible" comparison we're all up in arms about is hardly that at all.


----------



## Andre

RyanD said:
			
		

> They don't have to gain sufficient noteriety in the player community.  They have to gain sufficient notoriety in the design community.  Even better:  They have to gain sufficient notoriety at Wizards of the Coast.
> 
> That may be easier than you think.  A lot of people at WotC play a lot of RPGs, and they actively look at lots of RPG products.  I suspect that they have dissected in some detail most of the top-selling D20 products, and probably a lot of the top selling PDF only products.
> 
> I also think there's a difference between "a whole bunch of feats" and a tightly focused design effort to improve a specific area of the game.  (Note in my example, I suggested source material for unqiue cultural reference).  Innovating in areas that D&D is weak in (mass combat, non-combat challenge resoution, environments other than forests and caves, etc.) allows a DM/player group who needs that resource to add it without major disruptions to the rest of the game, and it is the kind of thing likely to pique WotC's interest.
> 
> I also suspect that we're nearing a time when one or more groups push to make a publisher independent "reference platform" for D20 that can be produced as a PDF document and revised more often than the core D&D rulebooks are.  A quarterly "build" akin to the distribution of Linux would do nicely.  Once that process starts, and a significant design community aggregates around it, that "reference platform" becomes a one-stop-shop for WotC as they consider things to add to the core of D&D.  Such a reference platform would be designed to be a playable D20 RPG that could be used (per the OGL) by any publisher who expressed an interest, which means that such an effort may have a commercial application to provide some kind of funding to support a higher-than-volunteer-only level of development.
> 
> That's the kind of thing the OGL enables that we didn't have before.




While it's nice that only designers need to see the (presumably superior) new rules, they still need a mechanism for disseminating those rules to the gaming community in coherent form. Publishing new editions on a regular basis will meet considerable resistance, especially if the new rules necessitate significant changes in the current rules-set. One of the major complaints against 3.5 was that the changes were broad and subtle, so that one's mastery of the system was severely compromised. GM's and players have to check everything, because it's not at all clear what was changed.

Your idea of a reference platform is interesting, but is it viable for the majority of the gaming public? PDF distribution lags far, far behind print. So who's the target market for this platform? A small, passionate fan base, such as tends to congregate at sites such as ENWorld, or the bulk of d20 gamers? I won't dismiss the idea out of hand, but I'd need to hear a lot more to be convinced it would be more than a niche product. And if it is a niche product, we're still left with the main problem of new rules - no simple mechanism for adding the rules to the main corpus that will be used by a majority of gamers.


----------



## Zappo

If the reference platform was freely available, as is the SRD now, distribution would largely be a non-issue.


----------



## Silverleaf

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> The way I read his statement, people 'are playing' ShadowRun and CoC because of factors other than rules mechanics. I don't think he's saying 'people are 'not playing' SR and CoC because of the rules mechanics'.




In much the same way, there are people currently playing D&D 3.5 despite its mechanics, not because of it.  In fact, a portion of those people would rather be playing another game, but unfortunately for them, they're not persistent or creative enough to find a way to accomplish that.
Think about it...  You can go dungeon-delving, fight monsters and get treasure without needing 1000+ pages of rules.  There are quite a few non-d20 systems out there which allow this kind of gameplay, at a much lower level of complexity & accounting.


----------



## buzz

The Shaman said:
			
		

> And how would you interpret the negative responses to d20 _Call of Cthulhu_?



What? You mean like when it was nominated for an Origins award? Or how it has an average review of 4.75 stars out of eight reviews here on ENworld? And 4.7/4.6 Style/Substance out of nine reviews on RPG.net (a community that, by a recent informal poll, voted BRP as their favorite system)? That Ken Hite listed it as a "strong contender" for an Outie for Best Retread of 2002?   

If there are negative responses, they're toward Chaosium for totally dropping the ball on support for the product.


----------



## The Shaman

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Of course, I could argue the same sort of thing on a different tack - you're showing us grapes and raisins (or plums and prunes if you prefer) while telling me one is fruit and the other is meat, when despite some basic superifical differences they're not _just_ both fruit - they're the exact *same* fruit....Am I taking your example to extremes? No. I'm just taking it to a logical conclusion in order to illustrate that "incompatible" comparison we're all up in arms about is hardly that at all.



I suppose it depends on the degree to which you think d20 games are alike - lumpers will say "It's all fruit, now leave off, you stupid git," while splitters will say that while the underlying mechanic is the same, playing _M&M_ is quite a different experience from playing _D&D_.

I would definitely count myself in the latter group based on my playing experience: I chose to run a two 'Modern' (but definitely not four-color heroics) games using _M&M_ rather than d20 _Modern_ specifically because of differences between the two systems - the differences were the deciding factor for me, not the similarities.

Someone who picks up _Blue Rose_, or _Conan_ RPG, is playing a different game than D&D, often consciously so, despite the underlying mechanic. I don't think plums and prunes captures this relationship.

(I tried for five minutes to come up with something funny about prunes, and I just couldn't do it - I'm tired this morning...  )


----------



## The_Universe

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I suppose it depends on the degree to which you think d20 games are alike - lumpers will say "It's all fruit, now leave off, you stupid git," while splitters will say that while the underlying mechanic is the same, playing _M&M_ is quite a different experience from playing _D&D_.
> 
> I would definitely count myself in the latter group based on my playing experience: I chose to run a two 'Modern' (but definitely not four-color heroics) games using _M&M_ rather than d20 _Modern_ specifically because of differences between the two systems - the differences were the deciding factor for me, not the similarities.
> 
> Someone who picks up _Blue Rose_, or _Conan_ RPG, is playing a different game than D&D, often consciously so, despite the underlying mechanic. I don't think plums and prunes captures this relationship.
> 
> (I tried for five minutes to come up with something funny about prunes, and I just couldn't do it - I'm tired this morning...  )



 That's the rub though - you chose between D20 Modern and Mutants and Masterminds, and other Modern RPGs (like GURPs, for instance) never entered into the mix. Both of your choices have a lot more in common with Core D20 (and with eachother) than they have differences. Are they different? Sure they are! But they're still in that range of difference between grapes and raisins or even between red grapes and green ones. Hell, Blue Rose is pretty much Mutants and Masterminds taken halfway back to D&D/Core D20, True20 is the same with a little bit of D20 Modern thrown in, and Conan is just D&D going back to its roots.  

Now, if you start comparing D&D to Shadowrun or WEG's D6 (or whatever), I think we might have a good basis for discussion.   Those entirely games (GURPs, Shadowrun, whatever) might be a wholly different fruit - or not fruit at all.


----------



## The Shaman

*The Universe*? Lumper.

*The Shaman*? Splitter.

Isn't diversity a wonderful thing?


----------



## The_Universe

The Shaman said:
			
		

> *The Universe*? Lumper.
> 
> *The Shaman*? Splitter.
> 
> Isn't diversity a wonderful thing?



 Sure it is...but I think we're imagining more diversity than there is, here.


----------



## John Morrow

The Shaman said:
			
		

> If this is true, where will the next level of innovation in gaming come from? Must everyone drink the Kool-Aid to have something to contribute to gaming?




Ryan Dancey said, _"So we've seen a move towards games that are mechanically distinct, and a move towards consolidating a lot of "genre" options (without a rational for mechanical distinctiveness) into D20. That's exactly what I thought would happen, and I think that trend will only continue. Now, when a publisher thinks about releasing an RPG, they have to explain why they're not using D20, and if they can't make the case, they don't get sales."_

In other words, innovation is fine so long as it's really an innovation and not simply D&D with a few things changed.  If all you want to do is write a setting or genre book, there is no reason to create a whole new system just to support it because plenty of those afterthought systems are either half-baked or don't improve on what's already out there.  Did Talislanta, Sovereign Stone, or even Paladium really need an entirely new system or could they have accomplished the same thing with d20 or with d20 with some tweaks (in fact, some of them have come out with d20 versions)?  That's the sort of thing Ryan Dancey wants to see less off.  If you want to publish your fantasy setting for D&D or want to publish your special rules for fixing D&D, now you can do so legally without selling a whole new system that looks like D&D with the serial numbers filed off.  But if you want to do something completely different, there is still room for that.


----------



## Ourph

RyanD said:
			
		

> Let's examine this assumption.  One of my long term projects is to database the entire market beat section from Comics & Games Retailer.  For those of you not in the know, this is an industry publication that tracks sales trends for most major hobby gaming categories.  Unforuntately, their data is self-reported by retailers and is not based on POS data, so it is considered to be quite suspect in specifics.  However, for the purposes of general trend analysis, espeically for marketshare leaders, it is reasonably useful.




Ryan, I notice WHFRP wasn't included in your data, even though it was in print during both periods you examine (WHFRPv1 through Hogshead in 1999/2000 and WHFRPv2 in Feb 2005 through BI/GI).  Do you know why that data isn't present?


----------



## Pramas

RyanD said:
			
		

> Although I think it is a shame that Warhammer isn't a D20 game, I'm not at all surprised that GW wouldn't let Green Ronin do it that way.




That presumes we ever wanted to do WFRP as a d20 game, which we didn't. From my very first pitch to GW, my position was that d20 was the wrong way to go for WFRP.


----------



## Andre

Zappo said:
			
		

> If the reference platform was freely available, as is the SRD now, distribution would largely be a non-issue.




I disagree. The SRD has been available since soon after the 3.0 books were first released, but WOTC has sold hundreds of thousands (millions?) of core books in past few years. Like it not, most gamers seem unwilling to use an online/digital rules source for this game. Personally, I like having the SRD available for quick searches, but I wouldn't want to use it in place of the core books.

Consider this scenario: the mythical 4E is published by WOTC in both print and digital forms. The digital form is similar to the SRD and is updated quarterly with FAQ, errata, and new rules. Access to the 4E SRD is free to anyone with the bandwith to download it. Gamers are encouraged by WOTC to use the latest version of the rules, the SRD, rather than the core books. What would be the likely effects of this? 

Either the SRD would become the premier source of game rules, in which case WOTC's cash cow dries up. Or it would be used as it is today, as a niche product that seems to have little or no effect on most gamers. The third option, that WOTC would charge for the SRD, would simply encourage more gamers to stick with the core books, which are not updated on a quarterly basis, slowing acceptance of the new rules, and further splintering the market. "Which version are you playing? 4.0, 4.0147, or the latest superduper 4.11?"

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I just don't see the gaming community ready to accept game rules in the same form that we accept software builds. And I don't think that will change for a long time.


----------



## Corinth

I suspect that RPGs are capital goods masquerading as consumer goods.


----------



## RyanD

Pramas said:
			
		

> That presumes we ever wanted to do WFRP as a d20 game, which we didn't. From my very first pitch to GW, my position was that d20 was the wrong way to go for WFRP.




Now I'm extremely interested.

Could you discuss the reasons you think WFRP requires a mechanically distinct approach?


----------



## SweeneyTodd

RyanD said:
			
		

> That was never an assumption of mine and I've never stated such.  D&D (and D20) is very good at modeling a certain kind of RPG experience (a party of adventurers forms and seeks challenges and are rewarded with increases in power).  It is not well suited to many other kinds of storytelling/gaming; it cannot be all things to all people.



I thought that was what you meant. Now if we'd only had someone state that before all these discussions started, they would have been a few dozen pages shorter. 

(For example, the whole "rules light" thing sort of falls by the wayside -- it took me pages of posts and replies before I realized, "Oh, you're saying you want the system to do X. I want it to do Y. That explains everything..")

By the way, Ryan, I also think your quote above answers your question about WHFRP. They probably could have made it d20, but it'd have drifted the system even more than, say, Midnight or Iron Heroes. They probably felt that making it d20, drifted to suit the WHFRP style of play, wasn't preferable to evolving the old WHFRP system, which already supported that style of play. (For instance, the WHFRP system and setting both reflect PCs who don't grow in power to the point where they can do what high level D&D characters can.)


----------



## RyanD

Ourph said:
			
		

> Ryan, I notice WHFRP wasn't included in your data ... Do you know why that data isn't present?




No sales activity was reported by retailers during the period in question.

No sales from May of '99 to October of '99, and no sales from April '00 through July '00.

WHFRP's heyday was before C&GR started collecting data.  For the data I have access to, it appears to have sold about 1/3 as well as Call of C, which is the slowest selling "Evergreen" RPG I am tracking.

As I have heard rumors of 50,000 unit print runs for the new version, I can only assume that the Warhammer Fantasy brand is *strong like bull!*


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

oldschooler said:
			
		

> Originally, D&D had three skimpy books and somehow, we all survived. Must have been a pretty good game to get where it is now!



I didn't do "just fine", I did alright.  It was more fun than sitting around doing nothing, but we had so many arguements each week, resulting in people picking up their stuff and going home or once a DM I had went into his room and refused to come out and left all his players sitting around a table.

All due to arguements due to lack of rules.  There were weeks I felt it was easier not to play.  I KNEW there must be a better way though.  If only someone would write down rules for the things we argued each week about.  My friends wouldn't accept the ones I made up.




			
				oldschooler said:
			
		

> BTW:
> *Father Flagellent*
> 18th level Cleric (OD&D)
> (snip)
> Yeah, that's the whole character and he took me all of two minutes to create. I'm not even going to attempt to make a 3.5 version!




Alright, I'll bite:

Race: (I'll assume human)
*Strength:* 10 (0)
*Intelligence:* 12 (+1)
*Wisdom:* 20 (+5) (currently 26 with periapt)
*Constitution:* 9 (-1)
*Dexterity:* 11 (0)
*Charisma:* 17 (+3)
*Alignment:* Lawful Good (seems good to me)
*Gold Pieces:* GP value for 18th level (don't have a DMG to check it)
*Experience: *153000
*Hit Points:* 79
*Spells:*  6  5+1(+2)  5+1(+2)  5+1(+2) 5+1(+2)  4+1(+1)  4+1(+1)  3+1(+1)  3+1(+1)  2+1
*Domains:* Healing and War
*Feats:* Martial Weapon Proficiency (longsword)(B), Weapon Focus (longsword)(B), Combat Casting, Improved Crit (longsword), Augmented Healing, Extra Turning(x2), Quicken Spell, Empower Spell, Divine Metamagic (Quicken Spell)
*Skills:* Heal 21(+8), Spellcraft 21(+1), Knowledge(Religion) 21(+1), Concentration 21(-1)
*Equipment:* silver cross, Longsword +4, full plate armor & large steel shield +5, potions of Cure Serious Wounds and Gaseous Form, Boots of Levitation, backpack, iron rations, waterskin, 3 vials of holy water and a church in the city, periapt of wisdom +6, ring of protection +4 (and a bunch of gold left over)
*Backstory:* explored White Lion castle in the name of God, wherein he eventually laid low the vile Baron Darkcloak and his undead horde. Now resides in the city of Emberfile, only occasionally going on quests for myriad holy reasons.



			
				oldschooler said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's the whole character and he took me all of two minutes to create. I'm not even going to attempt to make a 3.5 version!



Mine took me about 15 minutes, but I was interupted a couple of times(I'm at work), and had to consult the SRD for a couple things I didn't know.

Overall, not half bad.


----------



## Psion

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> Mine took me about 15 minutes, but I was interupted a couple of times(I'm at work), and had to consult the SRD for a couple things I didn't know.




If you had picked knowledge and sun domains, you could have just plugged in the spells I picked a few (okay, MAAAANY) pages back.


----------



## RyanD

[rsd - edited to add "ability scores" to my list of modules]



			
				SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> (For instance, the WHFRP system and setting both reflect PCs who don't grow in power to the point where they can do what high level D&D characters can.)




Power inflation is not a feature of D20.  It is a feature of D&D.  It would be very easy to make a D20 game where high level characters are not demigods.

I veiw D20 as a modular RPG system.  These are the key modules:

1)  The core mechanic (d20 + modifiers vs. target numbers) for task resolution

2)  Six ability scores (STR, DEX, CON, WIS, INT, CHA; different names ok but undesirable)

3)  States & Conditions

4)  Skills

5)  Feats

6)  The game components (races, classes, spells, monsters, magic items, etc.)

I've ordered those in decreasing importance (from the perspective of the network externality).  By the time you get to #5 and #6, I feel you can make extremely radical changes without introducing much in the way of inefficiencies.

A lot of people think that they need to start with D&D as the baseline, and then change D&D to whatever game they're targeting.  I think that's the wrong approach.  I think the best approach is to start at #1 and build up, making design choices at each step to reach a desired outcome.  The result may appear to be highly divergent from D&D, but as long as it mechanically works the same way, and uses consistent definitions, the ability of a player to use the game based on prior knowledge will be quite high.

That's why I structured the original SRD the way I did and did not use the outline of the D&D core books.

If you want a low powered game with fragile PCs, D20 will accomodate you just fine.  On the other hand, if you want a game where each different kind of task requires a different approach to its resolution mechanics, D20 is not your ideal platform.

D20 does not support linear character advancement well.  Its minimum scale is 5% increments.  If you want a game where little bits of the character are constantly changing in very minor, gradual ways over time, D20 is not a good fit.

D20 is not a good system for people who need to memorize all the rules.  D20 assumes that you're using a rulebook as a part of game play, and thus a higher level of complexity is involved vs. what would be acceptable if the players were expected to have memorized everything.

D20 is not a good fit for large discrepencies in size & power.  (i.e., mortals vs. gods, marines vs. battleships, bugs vs. people)

D20 is not a good fit for characters that change radically between (or in the middle of) game sessions (because of the amount of bookkeeping required).

D20 is not a good game for GMs who want to surprise players or use "hidden knowledge" of the mechanics as a storytelling feature.

But D20 is a good game for all kinds of genres that involve groups of people who band together and face challenges in return for increased power.


----------



## mearls

Campbell said:
			
		

> The following is what Mearls actually said.
> 
> 
> Now the question becomes what exactly Mearls meant by "build products". One interpretation might be that Mearls was talking about the quality of design work being done within the 'd20 industry'. Another, and in my opinion more interesting, interpretation could be that Mearls was talking about the types of business decisions d20 companies have been making since 2000, as in how product lines are conceived, developed, and marketed in the aggregate. This is also a stronger position to take. The question then becomes what should d20 companies do on a strategic rather than tactical level to both serve the market and reliably perform at higher profit margins. One area that I would like to see d20/OGL companies improve upon is the use of other companies' OGC as a jumpiing off point where previous work has been done.  I believe there is a fair amount  of unnecesarry reinventing the wheel goiing on.
> [/size][/font]




The word "build" is rather vague. I'll try to address this, though I fear I'll just add ambiguity. I have a ton of work for this afternoon and some errands to run. Anyway, here goes:

The process of building a product is far more involved and detailed than simply writing and designing it. It begins with the most important questions that a designer or company has to answer: what does this book seek to do? What is its purpose? What does it do that no other book does? Is that purpose worth pursuing?

This is the key point where the staggering majority of products die. In some cases it's simply ignorance - a company hasn't done much work before, the "industry" wisdom on sales and success is, at best, distorted (no one aside from John Nephew will ever come out and say "product X just didn't sell well for us"), the company ignores its own sales data, and so on. There's also an impulse to shoot for the fences - a lot of companies seem to try to push out books that cover areas or subjects that haven't been touched yet in hopes of hitting on some raw, hungry portion of the market.

The big problems here are lack of marketing data (the company/designer simply doesn't know what gamers want) and, specific d20, a fundamental ignorance of the culture of D&D. The second bit is the tricky part - I've long believed that a designer has to have a fundamental love of D&D, the essence of the D&D play experience, its tropes, and its somewhat undefinable "je ne sais quoi" that makes it so sticky for gamers. In other words, someone who plays D&D, loves D&D, and embraces D&D is much more likely to come up with product ideas and concepts that appeal to D&D players.

(Here's a simple analogy: consider processes and ideas at work that come from people on your own team or management level and those from above. Which tend to work better? The same thing is at work here - the designer who is engaged in D&D is much more likely to understand the game, what it needs, where it is, and where it's going than someone who isn't).

So that's step 1, and that's where most game products die. They're DOA.

At the finer level, we have mechanics and story design. Story design is all over the map - Sturgeon's law and all that.

Mechanics design is trickier. I talk about this on my journal, but I think there's a few factors at work:

* Story design is sexier and leads to novel contracts, so designers focus on it.
* The economics of freelancing and publishing reward speed - more contracts equals more income. More books released, in theory, means more income or (maybe) better cash flow. Good mechanical design takes time. It takes testing. It takes study, analysis, comparison, and research.
* There is no culture of learning, study, analysis, and growth in the RPG "industry".
* Since most smaller companies can't compete in terms of playtesting, some of them actively push the idea that rules are bad for RPGs. This bleeds into the design community.
* RPG work pays poorly and demands a fair amount of time, even for a freelancer. Thus, we have a brain drain where capable people go into game design work in other industries or they stick to gaming as a hobby.

So, once you go through all those filters, I think you end up with less than a handful of people in the d20 industry who can concept a viable product, build interesting, useful ideas into that product, and then deliver a final, complete draft.

The key consideration is that for a D&D player or DM, there's no need to have the same rigorous ability in design as a professional. A DM can produce material balanced and usable for his specific game with ease - the key is when you try to port that material to the game as a whole.

The challenge to the industry, IMO, is finding those DMs who are producing really cool, useful, professional grade material, and recruiting them to write professionally.


----------



## Staffan

RyanD said:
			
		

> Shadowrun and CoC are essentially static - they are the same games published throughout this entire timeframe.  My opinion is that they'd sell just as well if they had been D20 from the start,




I doubt that. If there's one thing I've seen that d20 is NOT good for, it's modern-day or future gaming. I'm assuming that d20 Modern is included in "d20 (Wizards of the Coast)" in your database (along with Star Wars d20, which I admit suffers from not having any new stuff released), behind HERO, GURPS, Call of Cthulhu, and Shadowrun. d20 needs to be bent and folded almost to the point of being unrecognizable in order to work well with a modern/future setting (such as with Mutants & Masterminds).

My preferred game for doing modern/future gaming is still Alternity, which was cancelled despite being an OK seller for anyone who isn't WOTC. It's not perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than d20 for the kinds of things it does.


----------



## Zappo

Andre said:
			
		

> I disagree. The SRD has been available since soon after the 3.0 books were first released, but WOTC has sold hundreds of thousands (millions?) of core books in past few years. Like it not, most gamers seem unwilling to use an online/digital rules source for this game.



That's true. We've got three PHBs in my group, even though we'd really only need to print out the SRD.

But that doesn't matter, because the main users of a freely distributed reference document would be the designers. The aim of the OGL was to allow publishers and writers to produce supplements without paying license fees. Giving free electronic versions of the rules to gamers is just a byproduct.


----------



## Psion

Staffan said:
			
		

> I doubt that. If there's one thing I've seen that d20 is NOT good for, it's modern-day or future gaming.




Those who have played in my Traveller d20 games to date seem to disagree. 

And I do as well.



> d20 needs to be bent and folded almost to the point of being unrecognizable in order to work well with a modern/future setting (such as with Mutants & Masterminds).




As genres go, M&M is a _supers_ game, not a modern action game or SF game. Certainly not in the same category as Alternity.

And I would agree perfectly that for supers, d20 needs to change lots, as some of the fundamental tenets of the genre mismatch the system's assumptions.


----------



## The_Universe

Psion said:
			
		

> Those who have played in my Traveller d20 games to date seem to disagree.
> 
> And I do as well.



 Me too (or three)!

I *heart* D20's Modern/Future incarnations.


----------



## BryonD

Psion said:
			
		

> Those who have played in my Traveller d20 games to date seem to disagree.
> 
> And I do as well.




Third. (or fourth, or something    )


----------



## Campbell

T20 has some solid mechanics. The lethality of combat is excellent modification of the d20 System, and the class design is solid for a game where blood shed is often a last resort. I heart T20 almost as much as Star Hero.


----------



## Ace

mearls said:
			
		

> SNIP
> 
> The challenge to the industry, IMO, is finding those DMs who are producing really cool, useful, professional grade material, and recruiting them to write professionally.




Recruiting and Keeping can be a challlenge but its really an issue of economics -- Writing game stuff pays so poorly that food service clerks make as good or better  a living -- as an example one of the BEST Non WOTC Employers is SJGames -- you can get 3 cents a word on E23 and I assume a bit more for print. WOTC is one of the very few exceptions -- and i won't discuss them but even your guys are mostly freelancers 

Now SJ Games (and many industry) rates come out to $2400 for a project, lets say you get 5 cents for Print that would be $4000 for an 80k word project that can take a minimum of a month (usually 2) if you are highly skilled 

 -- Very few people can produce 12+ of these a year--

In fact to make a decent living  in California (not good mind but acceptable) as a full time game writer  I would need a project a month with certitude of getting paid in full every time or a job as a staff writer for 40K -- can many outside of WOTC afford that?

Until they can and there  are a decent number of jobs like that  that gaming will remain Mostly Hobby Only -- Its My Baby Right to PDF Man

Also IMO many of the best writers are very time limited -- they tend to have work/or school for some at 50+ hours a week (official 40hr work week, lunch and commute) + personal life and maybe a campaign too (for another 5+) this leaves precious little time to write -- call it 10 hours a week if they cut back on internet and TV and Video games and work like a Trooper

You can't expect a stream of a professional content from those circumstances

Instead (because of the low cost of entry) you get what we have now -- Lots of amature stuff of various grades

Fortunately technology makes editing and production better and gamers in general are pretty creative. Most of the material is quite decent -- maybe not professional grade but certainly worth while and fun


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Staffan said:
			
		

> I'm assuming that d20 Modern is included in "d20 (Wizards of the Coast)" in your database (along with Star Wars d20, which I admit suffers from not having any new stuff released), behind HERO, GURPS, Call of Cthulhu, and Shadowrun.



Not sure exactly, it seems that you weren't exactly clear, but you did know that D20 (Star Wars) actually had it's own separate entry above HERO, GURPS, CoC, and Shadowrun. Right under D20 (Mongoose).


----------



## Staffan

Psion said:
			
		

> Those who have played in my Traveller d20 games to date seem to disagree.



I haven't played T20, so I wouldn't know about that. I do know that d20 Modern misses the boat in a lot of ways.

I think my main problem is that the expectations I get when watching a modern-day/sci-fi movie or TV show jives rather poorly with a class/level-based system. Luke Skywalker is an excellent pilot, an athlete, a good shot, and a jedi. Han Solo is a pilot, mechanic, fast-talker, gambler, and a good shot. Sheridan is a diplomat, leader, pilot, tactician, and soldier. Garibaldi is a hacker, soldier, pilot, business-man, and a decent leader. Sydney Bristow is an athlete, great with disguises, a great shot, an actress, an infiltrator, and so on. Malcolm Reynolds is a leader, planner, good shot, and throws a mean punch (not so good with a sword though). Rupert Giles is a librarian, researcher, fighter, trainer, and sometime sorcerer.

Basically, people in modern/future sources exhibit multiple talents, even when they're part of an ensemble cast - sure, not all people are the same, but their areas of competency seem a lot larger than those of typical D&D characters. By comparison, fantasy characters tend to be far more archetypal - the Knight, the Wizard, the Thief, and so on. This means that a class-based system works much better for fantasy than modern/future.


----------



## Staffan

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> Not sure exactly, it seems that you weren't exactly clear, but you did know that D20 (Star Wars) actually had it's own separate entry above HERO, GURPS, CoC, and Shadowrun. Right under D20 (Mongoose).



D'oh, my bad. I was looking for d20 Modern, and once I had figured out that it was included in "d20 (WOTC)" I started writing, and then didn't go back to check if d20 (Star Wars) had a separate entry.


----------



## Psion

Staffan said:
			
		

> I think my main problem is that the expectations I get when watching a modern-day/sci-fi movie or TV show jives rather poorly with a class/level-based system.




I disagree.



> Luke Skywalker is an excellent pilot, an athlete, a good shot, and a jedi.




How many of these things are classes?

1.

Nothing about a class/level based system prevents this. He is a jedi. He is a decent shot with a blaster (attack bonuses), has decent physical attributes, and has a fair few of his skill ranks devoted to pilot.



> Han Solo is a pilot, mechanic, fast-talker, gambler, and a good shot. Sheridan is a diplomat, leader, pilot, tactician, and soldier. Garibaldi is a hacker, soldier, pilot, business-man, and a decent leader. Sydney Bristow is an athlete, great with disguises, a great shot, an actress, an infiltrator, and so on. Malcolm Reynolds is a leader, planner, good shot, and throws a mean punch (not so good with a sword though). Rupert Giles is a librarian, researcher, fighter, trainer, and sometime sorcerer.




Again, count the classes.

Classes are not skills/talents.

I think you should re-evaluate your stance on this. What you argue against is not prevented by d20's class based system. In fact, several of the T20 characters I handed out for the con games I ran could just as easily be ran off in skill clusters like you cite. "Jen is a doctor, traveller, navigator, and sensors operator. Ja'sen is a grav pilot, sharp shot, and investigator." Etc.

Most modern takes on d20 leverage the (underutilized in D&D) skill system more, which makes this possible. Most IME also kick the multiclassing penalty to the curb.

Some games leverage the archetype aspect of the d20 system as D&D has it to some degree. For example, Spycraft tends to model its classes as "team roles". Other takes on the system less so. But even spycraft doesn't use the multiclassing penalty.

At the same time, there is plenty of archetyping that goes on in SF and modern gaming. Depending on what you are after, strong archetyping might be the way to go.


----------



## RyanD

Staffan said:
			
		

> My preferred game for doing modern/future gaming is still Alternity




Can you name a mechanical advantage that Alternity has that D20 (not D&D - D20) does not?


----------



## Gentlegamer

mearls said:
			
		

> * Since most smaller companies can't compete in terms of playtesting, some of them actively push the idea that rules are bad for RPGs. This bleeds into the design community.



_More digs at "rules lite" and other companies . . . _


----------



## Henry

RyanD said:
			
		

> Can you name a mechanical advantage that Alternity has that D20 (not D&D - D20) does not?




Remember your article "Hit Points suck?" Alternity has a diverse wounds system that is simple to use and has it over hit points in spades, when you're seeking something that allows dramatic wounds as well as accounting for body armor. Even aimed shots have a concrete and positive benefit in this system that is more difficult to pull off, but worthwhile enough to try once in a while on the battlefield.


----------



## Henry

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> _More digs at "rules lite" and other companies . . . _




I don't see it as that, so much as an admittal that some companies DO push the idea that more rules are always a bad thing, and there are companies out there (Monte Cook has written that he's familiar with some, but not by names) who DON'T playtest their products before sending them into production. Again, he said "some", not all.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> _More digs at "rules lite" and other companies . . . _



Honestly? I don't even see it that way anymore. I think I see where they're coming from.

That comment, and the one by Ryan on the last page, makes me think they're talking about "the roleplaying industry" as "stuff that's like D20". And I'll even grant that if you want to produce your own system for a commercial roleplaying game that does everything D20 does, has the same design goals, and plays basically the same, then you should probably make your product D20 instead of coming up with your own system. I dig it; don't reinvent the wheel.

I think the disconnect is coming from the fact that some of us are talking about play styles that aren't supported by D20. They're explicitly saying that that stuff's outside the scope of the discussion.

But then again, it's almost a tautology -- if you believe that D20 can do whatever you want, and you have a preference for it, then it's a great big "duh" to use it. If you don't, then you don't use it. That doesn't prove that a non-D20 system that plays specifically differently than D20 can't be commercially successful, or fun to play.


----------



## buzz

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> _More digs at "rules lite" and other companies . . . _



Pfft. It's an observation about bad designers. Ease up.


----------



## buzz

RyanD said:
			
		

> It would be very easy to make a D20 game where high level characters are not demigods.



T20, d20M (especiaclly a no/low-FX game), and CoCd20, for starters.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

buzz said:
			
		

> Pfft. It's an observation about bad designers. Ease up.



I can't agree with that. Isn't it possible to believe your game should have a given level of rules complexity _for its own sake_, rather than because "Gee, I wanted it to be as thick as D20, but we didn't have time to test all that?" I think the latter qualifies as a "dig".


----------



## buzz

Henry said:
			
		

> Remember your article "Hit Points suck?" Alternity has a diverse wounds system that is simple to use and has it over hit points in spades, when you're seeking something that allows dramatic wounds as well as accounting for body armor. Even aimed shots have a concrete and positive benefit in this system that is more difficult to pull off, but worthwhile enough to try once in a while on the battlefield.



Psion's _Alternity_ reviews over at RPG.net also point out some of the game's unique characteristics. One was the step die mechanic, which produces a trapezoidal "curve", sort of the best bits of curved and linear distributions mixed together.

Though whether that's an advantage for Joe Gamer is debatable.


----------



## RyanD

Henry said:
			
		

> Alternity has a diverse wounds system that is simple to use and has it over hit points in spades




Hit points are a D&D feature, not a D20 feature.  WotC did 3 varient D20 games (SW, CoC and Wheel of Time) and they all used different wound systems & assumptions.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> I can't agree with that. Isn't it possible to believe your game should have a given level of rules complexity _for its own sake_, rather than because "Gee, I wanted it to be as thick as D20, but we didn't have time to test all that?" I think the latter qualifies as a "dig".




He's not talking about rules complexity.  He's talking about "We can't playtest our rules effectively, no matter how complex / simple they are, and therefore will instead state that rules are inherently bad."


----------



## SweeneyTodd

RyanD said:
			
		

> Hit points are a D&D feature, not a D20 feature.  WotC did 3 varient D20 games (SW, CoC and Wheel of Time) and they all used different wound systems & assumptions.



Look, I think this whole Socratic method thing you're doing is neat, and it generates discussion, but just state your point already. 

If the argument is that almost any kind of simulation-based party-play "group of adventurers" game can be run with D20, _if you tweak it enough_, then yes! It's true! Heck, with enough addons, I could probably run _Nobilis_ with D20. Granted it'd be unrecognizable except for rolling a d20, but hey! I'm using the system!

So if the question is, should people design and run their games by:
- Taking D20, and adding/removing features until it supports the style of game they want
- Taking some other system, and adding/removing features in the same way
- Designing their own system

That comes down to personal preference, _especially_ when we're talking about "What I run with my buddies on Fridays". 

I still don't see what benefit in the market someone gets if their game is d20 in terms of resolution mechanic, but the rest looks entirely different. Are there still reasonable network externalities?


----------



## buzz

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> I can't agree with that. Isn't it possible to believe your game should have a given level of rules complexity _for its own sake_, rather than because "Gee, I wanted it to be as thick as D20, but we didn't have time to test all that?" I think the latter qualifies as a "dig".



It certainly is possible. Thankfully, Mearls' comment has nothing to do with what you're implying here. He's talking about _bad_ design, not _rules-lite_ design. IOW, _Sometimes_ "lite" is used as an excuse by less-than-scrupulous companies to justify a lack of design rigor, as it's obviously easier to put on one's balck turtleneck and hide behind "lite" than it is to fake rigorous crunch. The former just takes less effort.

Parallel: it's really easy to plug a guitar into a rack of effects and make interesting sounds and claim you're a "texturalist" or "avante pop". That doesn't make you The Edge or Andy Summers, and it doesn't mean that either of them are not jaw-droppingly talented. It simply is.


----------



## mearls

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> He's not talking about rules complexity.  He's talking about "We can't playtest our rules effectively, no matter how complex / simple they are, and therefore will instead state that rules are inherently bad."




Precisely. It's aikido marketing - turn a competitor's strength into a disadvantage (whether perceived or otherwise).


----------



## BryonD

buzz said:
			
		

> Pfft. It's an observation about bad designers. Ease up.



It also happens to be a true statement.
A discussion can not go very far if true statements regarding one side are expected to be censored in the interest of avoided the perception of making "digs".


----------



## buzz

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> If the argument is that almost any kind of simulation-based party-play "group of adventurers" game can be run with D20, _if you tweak it enough_, then yes! It's true! Heck, with enough addons, I could probably run _Nobilis_ with D20. Granted it'd be unrecognizable except for rolling a d20, but hey! I'm using the system!



Seeing as _Nobilis_ is not a "simulation-based party-play 'group of adventurers' game", I'm not sure that what you're saying makes any sense. Also, given that it is diceless, it's already counted out at step one of Dancey's list, ergo not a d20 candidate.


----------



## buzz

BryonD said:
			
		

> It all happens to be a true statement.



If the statement in question was the assertion that Mearls' comment was a dig against rules-lite RPGs as a concept, then it is not true.


----------



## BryonD

buzz said:
			
		

> If the statement in question was the assertion that Mearls' comment was a dig against rules-lite RPGs as a concept, then it is not true.



Sorry, I meant Mearls statement was true.  I was agreeing with you.


----------



## Andre

Zappo said:
			
		

> But that doesn't matter, because the main users of a freely distributed reference document would be the designers. The aim of the OGL was to allow publishers and writers to produce supplements without paying license fees. Giving free electronic versions of the rules to gamers is just a byproduct.




You’re right, and I think this was what Ryan was referring to above. My point is that distributing new rules to designers is a means, not an end. The end has to be improving the gaming experience of actual players. If the new rules don't affect gamers, what's the point?

Assume WOTC begins to maintain a constantly changing body of rules for the game. Not just incorporating errata, but also new rules sub-systems released under the OGL. The purpose is to make available to WOTC and other companies’ designers the best of the d20 rules. What happens when a designer creates a supplement based on the latest collection of rules, as opposed to using the core books as the baseline?

We end up in a situation quite common in software design: upgrade or else. You want to use the latest version of Office? Sorry, you have to upgrade your operating system. You want to use the next iteration of a popular game? Better upgrade Direct X, your device drivers and, maybe, your entire operating system.

Imagine my frustration if I buy a series of modules only to find that they assume I’m using rules not in the core books. Do the designers reprint all the appropriate rules, in each module published, so anyone can play the module? Or do they include a blurb saying the module is NOT compatible with the core books as written, that I should first own a copy of "build 2.73" of the SRD? 

Instead publishers will continue to design products around what the majority of the community have, which is the core books. So collecting the “best” new rules in one place doesn’t seem to have much benefit to the average gamer. At best, it would help companies such as Malhavoc, who design alternate rule books. But for the vast majority of published material – I just don’t see it having an effect.


----------



## buzz

BryonD said:
			
		

> Sorry, I meant Mearls statement was true.  I was agreeing with you.



Whew!


----------



## RyanD

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> Just state your point already.




My point is that what most people think of as "big differences" between Game X and D20 are relatively trivial.  It is a discussion of trees from people who live in a forest.  To people outside the forest, we all seem to be nattering on about differences that are not meaningful.

"Big differences" would be things like:

*  A game that didn't quantify ability scores

*  A game where you had no system for killing anyone or breaking anything

*  A game where you didn't play an individual character (*)

*  A game where the players created their own virtual environment as they played


As it is, most RPGs are basically identical to each other on very fundamental levels.  Then they diverge in terms of mechanical rules.  Some use fewer rules than others.  Some use less well defined rules than others.  But eventually, they almost all come back to the same play pattern:  A group of individuals who band together to confront challenges and gain in power.

For all the talk about "innovation" and "creativity", the RPG genre, as a whole, has disturbingly little of either.

The example I have often used is that we are all engaged in writing sonnets, but each publisher chooses a slightly different definition of "sonnet" then tries to convince readers that their definition is innovative and creative.  But nobody writes haiku.  Or free verse.  Or lymerics.  And so all the poetry readers are left with is a sliver of the potential of the format.



> I still don't see what benefit in the market someone gets if their game is d20 in terms of resolution mechanic, but the rest looks entirely different. Are there still reasonable network externalities?




As I said in my previous post, I think that if you are consistent through my "module #4", and you use consistent definitions, you retain most of the value of the D20 network externality.  That leaves a wide margin for variance while still gaining the network value.  You'll note that "hit points" are not on my list of modules at all - they're just a scorekeeping mechanism, not an element of fundamental mechanical differentiation.  In the end, almost all "wound" systems in most "standard form" RPGs can be reduced to:  You're Ok, you're damaged, you're dying, you're dead.  As long as the rules are clear and simple on how that works, having a hundred variations on the theme is probably harmless.

Other things not on my list (and thus things I don't consider necessary to capture the value of the D20 network externality):

*  Races
*  Classes
*  Levels
*  Saving Throws (**)
*  Combat rules (other than the task resolution system, obviously)
*  Movement rules
*  Alignment
*  Experience Points

(*)  I'd really love to play an RPG where the operating entities were tribes, for example.  And conflict was resolved on a social, religious, political and economic matrix rather than a physical matrix.

(**)  This one is a bit iffy, because I consider the current system so elegant and so useful that I'm inclined to say "just use it unless you can clearly describe a mechanical reason not to", but if you're building a D20 RPG without combat or physical dangers, you could probably do it without saving throws and thus reduce the complexity of the game without any noticiable sacrifice.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> I still don't see what benefit in the market someone gets if their game is d20 in terms of resolution mechanic, but the rest looks entirely different. Are there still reasonable network externalities?




Absolutely!

For example, I can take a new monster straight from Lords of Madness and use it in a cosmic horror (d20 Call of Cthulu), modern (d20 Modern or Grim Tales), anime (BESM d20), space fantasy (Star Wars d20), sword and sorcery (OGL Conan), high fantasy (D&D), supers (Mutants and Masterminds), sci-fi (T20 or d20 Future), steampunk (OGL Steampunk or Iron Kingdoms or d20 Past), romantic fantasy (Blue Rose) or old school D&D (Castles & Crusades) campaign.

In most cases, it requires no change at all.  The most extreme would probably be Mutants and Masterminds or Blue Rose, with their damage saves, but even that is explicitly in the stat block already and just a matter of dropping the unneeded lines!  

I can do the same thing with a feat from Complete Warrior, with a spell from Arcana Evolved, a PC race from Warcraft d20, or, with a few exceptions, with a class from the Iron Kingdoms Character Guide.  At most, I might need to convert the damage system or the way characters accrued special abilities (making a class feature or spell into a feat or power, for example).

You could say the same for GURPS or HERO, of course; I'd even call HERO a better system in many respects.  But only SJG and Hero Games make products for those, and they don't have tasty variants like Blue Rose/True20 or Grim Tales.


----------



## RyanD

I had to modify my list from the previous post because I forgot to include ability scores.


----------



## Gentlegamer

mearls said:
			
		

> Precisely. It's aikido marketing - turn a competitor's strength into a disadvantage (whether perceived or otherwise).



Spin! Spin! Spin!  Wheee!

So I guess most game companies that talk about "rules lite" are the basic equivalent of Teh Crawring Crabe?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Spin! Spin! Spin!  Wheee!




No - and nowhere did he say that, either.  Are you just looking to be insulted, like I posited earlier?


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

In my opinion, the current "core book" model is one of the defining problems with the RPG industry's ability to take advantage of the OGL.

I would love to see a subscription-service SRD replace - not supplement, not offer an alternative to, replace - any "core books" for D&D 4e.  A document that comes with its own (simple) software interface to announce updates and provide easy searching.

New content would be released not as discrete "books" but as an ongoing "content feed."

Now, the kicker here is how to maintain OGL development?

Wizards of the Coast could, for a cut of the profits, allow other companies to add their "content feed" as a premium service: $19.99/month for the d20 feed, $4.99/month for Malhavoc, $4.99/month for Green Ronin, etc.  In effect, WotC becomes the cable company and the d20 publishers become the individual channels thereon.

Alternately, each company could have its own product feed with its own subscription/distribution system.

All of this could be printed and distributed to stores or via mail order subscriptions, for those who prefer hardcopies.  Nonetheless, the biggest downside of this option, IMO, is the possibility of killing FLGSes.


----------



## Gentlegamer

I'm turning his perceived strength into to a perceived disadvantage. [/deadpan]


----------



## Akrasia

Thanks for all the interesting information in your post, RyanD.  It was very enlightening.

I certainly agree that the production values of the 3e-era books has improved the quality of RPGs overall.  

Regarding your comment on WFRP:



			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> Now I'm extremely interested.
> 
> Could you discuss the reasons you think WFRP requires a mechanically distinct approach?




I am only a fan of WFRP, so I do not know Chris Pramas' reasons for not using d20 for the second edition.  (I will mention that I think he did a really excellent job with the 2e WFRP book, and that I am glad that it has the mechanics that it does.)

However, I *do* think that mechanics affect game play.  Simply tweaking 3e into a WFRP form would have failed miserably -- and I know that you would not have recommended that.  Revising d20 *enough* to accurately capture the feel of the WFRP game and setting would have resulted in a game that differed *significantly* from 3e (and the standard 'd20' system).  

At that point, the question becomes: "why radically modify the d20 system into a form suitable for Warhammer, when we could instead simply revise and update the 1e version?"  I know how I would answer that question.



			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> My point is that what most people think of as "big differences" between Game X and D20 are relatively trivial.  It is a discussion of trees from people who live in a forest.  To people outside the forest, we all seem to be nattering on about differences that are not meaningful.
> ....




But who cares about people outside the forest?  I am sure that to people who do not play wargames they ‘all look the same’; that to people who do not read fantasy novels, ‘the plots all look the same’; etc.

But the rules of a game *do* have an impact on how the game plays and feels.  These differences might seem trivial to people who do not play these games – but to people who *do*, the differences are important.

Moreover, there is a segment of the market that appears to enjoy trying out new mechanics.  For them, testing out new mechanics is part of he appeal of RPGs.  Granted, this is probably a very small segment of the market (despite the impression that one might get over at RPG.net), but it is there.


----------



## Henry

RyanD said:
			
		

> Hit points are a D&D feature, not a D20 feature.  WotC did 3 varient D20 games (SW, CoC and Wheel of Time) and they all used different wound systems & assumptions.




CoC uses the exact same system as D&D, even if the MDS is moved down to 10. Star Wars uses Vitality points/Wound Points, which is a very minor variation on the hit point mechanic. In essence, it still is hit points, even though there are some penalties associated with taking wound damage, I agree. I'm unfamiliar with Wheel of Time, I admit. But ALL work on the same principles as D&D's hit points. Alternity on the other hand, had three wound totals, with very different consequences for taking damage in each, and body armor had a definite effect to ward off different types of damage. While not quite as simple as d20 hit points, it definitely gives the feel of dramatic wounds, without making calculations too difficult, and it's a system I miss from time to time due to its lack of circulation in the d20 community.


----------



## Henry

RyanD said:
			
		

> (*)  I'd really love to play an RPG where the operating entities were tribes, for example.  And conflict was resolved on a social, religious, political and economic matrix rather than a physical matrix.




That sounds dead-on like Avalon Hill Civilization. It's a pity that Hasbro hasn't revamped that game to a more role-play oriented one...


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Henry said:
			
		

> Alternity on the other hand, had three wound totals, with very different consequences for taking damage in each, and body armor had a definite effect to ward off different types of damage. While not quite as simple as d20 hit points, it definitely gives the feel of dramatic wounds, without making calculations too difficult, and it's a system I miss from time to time due to its lack of circulation in the d20 community.




From your description, though, it sounds like the only real difference between this and D&D hit points is that, in Alternity, you've got: three pools of hit points (an expansion of the basic hit point mechanic), a more complicated "Armor as DR" system (i.e., a particular suit of armor has higher DR against laser fire than it does against bullets) (present in d20 StarWars), and an expansion of the Wounded mechanic to each hit point pool (present in d20 StarWars).

Since I've never played Alternity, what am I missing that makes it radically different?


----------



## Plane Sailing

I've not played alternity either, but I wonder if it is the difference between physical toughness and virtual toughness?

Runequest used hit points to reflect physical toughness. It rarely changed unless your physique changed.

D&D etc. uses 'virtual' hit points, which don't reflect physical toughness - they reflect an abstract set of things that make you harder to kill.

From Henry's description it sounds as if Alternity might have been more on the fixed, physical representation of hit points rather than the abstract version.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Runequest used hit points to reflect physical toughness. It rarely changed unless your physique changed.
> 
> D&D etc. uses 'virtual' hit points, which don't reflect physical toughness - they reflect an abstract set of things that make you harder to kill.
> 
> From Henry's description it sounds as if Alternity might have been more on the fixed, physical representation of hit points rather than the abstract version.




Which is similar to what d20 StarWars does.  You have Wound Points equal to your Con score, and Vitality Points similar to D&D hit points.  Vitality Points represent an abstract set of things that make you harder to kill.  When they're gone, you take Wound Point damage.

All critical hits apply directly to Wound Points, which don't change unless your Con score changes.

So, a putative d20-based system might have three pools of Wound Points, based on Con, Wis, and ... Cha (and even then D&D sort of has this already, too, with the ability damage / drain mechanic).


----------



## Psion

I think it's fair to say both sides have a point here.

Game mechanics do make a difference.

But the scope of those differences are often much smaller than people make out.


----------



## Turjan

Hmm... if all RPGs are the same anyway, what exactly are we discussing here? When is a d20 game still a d20 game, and when is it a completely different mechanical system? How much do you have to change of d20 in order to speak of a different system? Is Talislanta 4th edition (not the official d20 version) still a d20 game, even if it's not called a d20 game? I understand that there's no question whether HERO or GURPS represent different systems. But if you can basically change nearly everything of d20 and still call it d20, what makes for a different game then? Is it simply a matter of convention?


----------



## Plane Sailing

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Which is similar to what d20 StarWars does.  You have Wound Points equal to your Con score, and Vitality Points similar to D&D hit points.  Vitality Points represent an abstract set of things that make you harder to kill.  When they're gone, you take Wound Point damage.
> 
> All critical hits apply directly to Wound Points, which don't change unless your Con score changes.
> 
> So, a putative d20-based system might have three pools of Wound Points, based on Con, Wis, and ... Cha (and even then D&D sort of has this already, too, with the ability damage / drain mechanic).




No, in practice it is completely different - certainly in RQ which I'm familiar with there is no hit points at all. SWd20 simply ringfences a subset it calls wounds but still has a hugely variable bag of abstract hit points (called vitality points).

SWd20, CoC, d20Modern all use variations on the abstract hitpoint mechanism. MnM introduced the only genuinely different d20 damage mechanism that I've become aware of, and I haven't seen anything which uses physical, static hit points. Probably out there somewhere, but I haven't seen it. None of the WotC d20 games have moved significantly away from abstract hit points under one name or another.

Cheers


----------



## Staffan

RyanD said:
			
		

> Can you name a mechanical advantage that Alternity has that D20 (not D&D - D20) does not?



If you're going to reduce "d20" to mean "roll d20+bonus vs target number," I can only come up with one: variable success levels that can all be reached by (almost) all characters. If you roll below half your value, it's a Good success, and if it's below a quarter it's Amazing.

This kind of thing is really hard to do in a "roll-over" system. The closest you can get without serious mathematical acrobatics is to add special stuff if you beat the DC by certain numbers (like for the Knowledge skill used for monster lore, each 5 you beat it by gives you one more piece of information). However, that method means that someone who can only barely beat the DC can never get an exceptional level of success - a character with Knowledge (planes) +10 will never know more than one fact about a 16 HD outsider (DC 26). In Alternity, a character with a skill value of 10 performing a +3 difficulty task (rolling d20+d8) might have something like a 25% chance of success (I don't know the exact probabilities), which would translate to something similar to the above situation. However, he'll also have something like a 5% chance of a Good success, and maybe 1% chance of an Amazing one. In d20, that would not be possible.

There are other aspects of Alternity I like better than any version I've seen of d20, but if you're going to limit the definition of "d20" to the actual die-rolling mechanic, this is the only one I can come up with. However, if you'd go into the actual systems released (Alternity vs. d20Modern), there are *plenty* of other aspects that are better - and since I'm a consumer and not a game designer, those are the things I actually bother with.


----------



## Psion

Staffan said:
			
		

> If you're going to reduce "d20" to mean "roll d20+bonus vs target number," I can only come up with one: variable success levels that can all be reached by (almost) all characters. If you roll below half your value, it's a Good success, and if it's below a quarter it's Amazing.
> 
> This kind of thing is really hard to do in a "roll-over" system. The closest you can get without serious mathematical acrobatics is to add special stuff if you beat the DC by certain numbers (like for the Knowledge skill used for monster lore, each 5 you beat it by gives you one more piece of information). However, that method means that someone who can only barely beat the DC can never get an exceptional level of success - a character with Knowledge (planes) +10 will never know more than one fact about a 16 HD outsider (DC 26). In Alternity, a character with a skill value of 10 performing a +3 difficulty task (rolling d20+d8) might have something like a 25% chance of success (I don't know the exact probabilities), which would translate to something similar to the above situation. However, he'll also have something like a 5% chance of a Good success, and maybe 1% chance of an Amazing one. In d20, that would not be possible.




Not strictly true. If you use the open ended rolling variant introduced in the ELH (and bearing some resemblance to RM), you can do that.

I'm not sure I'd always want to, though. It depends on the task. You can have a lucky shot, for example, but can a neophyte musician randomly turn out a masterpeice?


----------



## SweeneyTodd

RyanD said:
			
		

> My point is that what most people think of as "big differences" between Game X and D20 are relatively trivial.  It is a discussion of trees from people who live in a forest.  To people outside the forest, we all seem to be nattering on about differences that are not meaningful.
> 
> "Big differences" would be things like:
> 
> *  A game that didn't quantify ability scores
> 
> *  A game where you had no system for killing anyone or breaking anything
> 
> *  A game where you didn't play an individual character (*)
> 
> *  A game where the players created their own virtual environment as they played
> 
> 
> As it is, most RPGs are basically identical to each other on very fundamental levels.  Then they diverge in terms of mechanical rules.  Some use fewer rules than others.  Some use less well defined rules than others.  But eventually, they almost all come back to the same play pattern:  A group of individuals who band together to confront challenges and gain in power.
> 
> For all the talk about "innovation" and "creativity", the RPG genre, as a whole, has disturbingly little of either.




I completely agree with this. I'm "outside the forest", and I think some of the arguing way back in this thread was because people inside and outside the forest were having disconnects in communication. (For instance, the person who asked the question that led to your response about rules-light gaming not being faster, that then started this thread? One of the developers of FATE, a game that's clearly outside the forest.)

So let me go down the list as far as how things are in games like FATE, Sorcerer, The Pool, Universalis, Primetime Adventures, HeroQuest, etc:

* Freeform ability scores -- often quantified, but, for example, you probably don't have a "Strength" score unless your character is particularly strong or weak. You could have "Strong", but you could also have "Loves Marsha" or "Alcoholic". (The stat that was rolled most against in the last campaign I ran in FATE was "Troublemaker", in fact.)

* Conflict resolution systems that use the same mechanic for killing and breaking as they do for anything else

* Possibility of troupe-style play. and sometimes shared characters

* Heavy Director stance, often codified in the system, so players are creating environment (and plot, for that matter) as they play

Those are the default play styles for the games I play, and a fair number of other people play. (I do admit these are games that are rarely discussed on ENWorld.) 

There are some interesting things about these games, which I think are strongly tied to the differences above.

* Social Contract is often discussed in the rules themselves, and little or no attempt is made for the rules to "patch up" Social Contract issues like differing agendas or one player blocking another's creative input. (In other words, the games specify the kinds of things you need to get straight within a group before and during play.)

* Focus on what the player wants to do, rather than exclusively "what my character would do". Players can propose conflicts, frame scenes, and have access to "metagame resources".

* Ability, and expectation, for players to add creative input at all levels. Gamemaster is more of a "first among equals" and his ideas are not necessarily privileged above those of the players.

* Combat is deemphasized, in favor of conflict of all kinds. If there are tactical resource allocation elements, they apply equally to things like "Convince my tribe to give us aid" as they do to "Kill that guy". Social conflict is often more common than physical conflict.

* (And this is a big one) Almost no need for rules-heavy supplements, and no attempt to release regular supplements to produce recurring income. (Often these games have no supplements at all, or focus on setting. One exception: Primetime Adventures does benefit from supplements, in the form of "A DVD set of your favorite TV show".  )

These games don't show up on the radar as far as sales compared to D20 products, for the most part, but I think some of them could if properly marketed. For example, Primetime Adventures is mechanically much simpler than Monopoly, and its subject material (TV shows) appeals a much larger potential market than heroic fantasy.

I imagine many people will think, "But those games only appeal to creative types, GMs". I'm finding that when you use a system that doesn't require design skills to create, players will surprise you. My players routinely come up with whole new directions for our "story" that are better than I'd thought of. 

And I'll argue that all you need is the ability to come up with compelling issues and characters to play like this -- and anyone who's ever told somebody a story about how their day went has already done that.

Sorry for the long post. My question is: Is anybody else here talking about this too? Because, I guess I'm dense, but this is what I was thinking when I was talking about and defending "rules-light" play. Rules-light simulationist "party of adventurer" games work fine too, but I don't think many of us are trying to say "I want to play exactly like D&D 3.x, but with fewer rules".


----------



## orangefruitbat

To me, it looks like Chris Pramas D20ised WFRP already (though it's obviously not a D20 game). Take a look at the skills/talents divide (aka, skills and feats), movement rules (virtually D20, except for a lack of 5' step), and combat actions (full actions, half actions, basically the same as Spycraft or Mutants and Masterminds). How do multiple attacks or two-weapon fighting work? Basically the same as D20. I definitely think WFRP benefited from these rules, and as GM, I benefited since I could explain the rules quickly to my players.

Now, I think a pure D20 system would not have been worth the bother (though I do think it would be possible). First of all, you lose compatibility/familiarity with WFB stuff, limiting the appeal for crossovers. (Like DnD, WFB and WH40K have their own networks). Second of all, you lose the career system (which while problematic in play, is quite distinctive). Third, you have to put up with a lot of hat of D02, which can drown out efforts to market your rerelease.




			
				Akrasia said:
			
		

> I am only a fan of WFRP, so I do not know Chris Pramas' reasons for not using d20 for the second edition.  (I will mention that I think he did a really excellent job with the 2e WFRP book, and that I am glad that it has the mechanics that it does.)
> 
> 
> .


----------



## Turjan

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> Sorry for the long post. My question is: Is anybody else here talking about this too? Because, I guess I'm dense, but this is what I was thinking when I was talking about and defending "rules-light" play. Rules-light simulationist "party of adventurer" games work fine too, but I don't think many of us are trying to say "I want to play exactly like D&D 3.x, but with fewer rules".



Actually, I was talking about that, yes. My last post was more my expression of disbelief about the stance that, basically, all (fantasy?) RPGs are more or less the same. This may be the case in comparison to quilting, but I don't think that this is some kind of general truth. Perhaps, games like C&C led to the connotation of 'rules-light' game with 'rules-deficient', because it's basically D&D 3.x with a few things taken out (no offence to C&C players; this is just semantics ). I never played FATE, but my experience comes from HeroQuest, which is an epic fantasy game that is 'rules-light' (sort of ), but has quite a few aspects that are completely lacking from the d20 rules set. Your description of FATE summed it up fairly well.

I'm not sure about how easy it is for players to go along with that. I had a few problems with my group that was used to D&D. The game asks for a change of the player's mindset, and it's sometimes hard. "What do you mean with I have no gold?"


----------



## Henry

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> From your description, though, it sounds like the only real difference between this and D&D hit points is that, in Alternity, you've got: three pools of hit points (an expansion of the basic hit point mechanic), a more complicated "Armor as DR" system (i.e., a particular suit of armor has higher DR against laser fire than it does against bullets) (present in d20 StarWars), and an expansion of the Wounded mechanic to each hit point pool (present in d20 StarWars).
> 
> Since I've never played Alternity, what am I missing that makes it radically different?




Alternity had three damage totals, similar to Shadowrun: Stun, Wound, and Mortal. Most weapons did wound damage, but thanks to the degrees of success that Staffan mentioned, (Ordinary, Good, and Amazing successes) higher powered weapons could do mortal damage outright, similar to hitting a vital artery. A mortal wound was not immediately fatal, but would cause further damage loss (blood loss) and if not treated within the hour, cause unconsciousness and ultimately death if not treated. Stun or Wounds would not cause unconsciousness until depleted, but after certain points would cause penalty to actions (similarly to getting the  getting kicked out of you).

With hit points, you're either up or down. With vitality/wounds, you approach the kind of gradation possible with Alternity's system, but there's no way that a character can be "walking wounded" as we know the term; if someone is wounded, they'll live just fine, but they take time to heal. In our Alternity games, if someone took a mortal wound, they KNEW they had to get their character off the battlefield and into triage SOON, or they were dead. Furthermore, body armor made a life-and death difference, as a mortal wound might be partially or even completely stopped by said armor, or due to the type of attack, might be totally useless. Not to make light of the situation, but having just watched a documentary on the North Hollywood Bank Robbery of 1997, this kind of situation was brought home in frightening detail, and reminded me that in a hit point system, such a situation is not really possible. So in my mind, there is a mechanical advantage to such a system.

Looking in the d20 arena, Green Ronin came close with the system they devised for Black Company, but it's a little TOO lethal and maiming for the average game session.


----------



## Akrasia

orangefruitbat said:
			
		

> To me, it looks like Chris Pramas D20ised WFRP already (though it's obviously not a D20 game)....




I will not deny that there are some minor 'd20-isms' in WFRP 2e, but there are also huge differences between d20 and WFRP.  The skill system works differently, talents are much simpler than d20 feats, the magic system is completely different, and the combat system (despite the minor features you mention) operates very differently (the wounds system, hit locations, critical wounds, etc.).  And, as you note, the WFRP career system differs greatly from the d20 class system.



			
				orangefruitbat said:
			
		

> Now, I think a pure D20 system would not have been worth the bother (though I do think it would be possible). First of all, you lose compatibility/familiarity with WFB stuff, limiting the appeal for crossovers. (Like DnD, WFB and WH40K have their own networks). Second of all, you lose the career system (which while problematic in play, is quite distinctive). Third, you have to put up with a lot of hat of D02, which can drown out efforts to market your rerelease.




I don't disagree with any of this, and don't see how it is incompatible with what I stated.  (Were you disagreeing with me?  I can't tell.)


----------



## Pramas

RyanD said:
			
		

> Now I'm extremely interested.
> 
> Could you discuss the reasons you think WFRP requires a mechanically distinct approach?




There were mechanical issues (a big one being that I wanted the game to be far more newbie friendly that D&D 3.5) but actually those were secondary. If I had really wanted to, I'm sure I could have rewritten the d20 rules to reflect the Warhammer world. After all, three of the "handful" of people who get d20 are on staff at Green Ronin.  We have done grim and gritty adaptations for other properties like Black Company and Thieves' World after all. However, my primary reasons for eschewing d20 were business related. I felt that WFRP had nothing to gain from the d20 logo and much to lose. For most companies, being able to piggy back on D&D is a plus (or at least, it used to be). Warhammer though is one of the biggest brands in hobby gaming. It doesn't need the d20 logo, it already has enormous strength as a brand. Further, if anyone has the market presence to establish a rival fantasy RPG to D&D, it's GW.


----------



## weasel fierce

I think its very likely that Warhammer would loose more fans from going D20, whereas the amount of D&D players that would want to buy Warhammer D20 is not likely to be that big


----------



## buzz

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Revising d20 *enough* to accurately capture the feel of the WFRP game and setting would have resulted in a game that differed *significantly* from 3e (and the standard 'd20' system).



IMO, the differences would be trivial, and the basic feel of WFRP would have been retained completely. How do I know this? Becasue Mearls basically did it already in FFG's _Darkness & Dread_.

I was a playtester for WFRP2. Looking at the system as a whole, there are already a lot of similarities to d20 (a not-uncommon complaint during the testing). Converting the remaining bits would be very simple and would keep the feel. E.g., careers already funciton so much like classes that it would be trivial to convert them (assuming you were using classes at all in the end product).

So, _could_ it have been d20 and kept the WFRP feel? Absolutely, IMO. _Should_ it have? I don't know; I'm betting the fanbase would have been annoyed enough that it would be a bad move. The deciding factor here is that WFRP was an existing game with an exising fanbase. I'm in agreement with Ryan (and Mearls, likely) that any _new_ RPG should take a long, hard look before they decide not to go d20.


----------



## buzz

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Since I've never played Alternity, what am I missing that makes it radically different?



In the grande scheme, not all that much. There are even d20 products (_Unearthed Arcana_, _Iron Heores_) that makes of some of its mechanics.


----------



## The_Universe

> I think its very likely that Warhammer would loose more fans from going D20, whereas the amount of D&D players that would want to buy Warhammer D20 is not likely to be that big



 I'd have bought it if it was D20 or OGL, and I won't because it's not.  I certainly don't pretend to represent a majority of gamers, though. I think it's a famous enough product as it stands that any people like me it would have gained it would have lost from its old ranks - I think it would have sold just as well as D20, but it probably *would* have been catering to a different fanbase.


----------



## Turjan

The_Universe said:
			
		

> I think it would have sold just as well as D20, but it probably *would* have been catering to a different fanbase.



I don't think that's right. If it had been published as a d20 game, it would have probably sold in the range of other grim'n'gritty d20 settings, and the goal for this release was set much higher than that. Instead of competing with the multitude of d20 settings that are already available, a previously untapped target group was reached: the huge number of Warhammer fans. Given the fact that GW has cultivated anti-TSR and anti-WotC statements for ages, it would have been an unwise move to use d20 mechanics, the "instrument of evil" . Instead of alienating their fanbase, they went the way that made economical sense: using their own system. And if the initial sales numbers that are circulating are correct, this way was definitely right.


----------



## The_Universe

My impression is that most "Warhammer fans" would have bought any "Warhammer" game - they might have griped about it being D20, but the true blue fanboys that its been posited are driving the strong sales of the games are exactly that - fanboys, one imagines that it couldn't have alienated all that many to the point of non-purchase, especially if it preserved the setting's "feel."

Warhammer is a big name - big enough that it would have been head and shoulders above any D&D setting out there except perhaps WotC's three - and even then, I bet a D20 version would have sold extraordinarily high numbers. 

My point is that you can't tell me that Warhammer's such a big name that X and Y are important, and then act like D&D RPGers (and D20 players) are strangely ignorant of this fantasy gaming behemoth.  If there was a "D&D/D20 Warhammer," it would have a decent shot of surpassing even established popular campaign settings. It's that big, and that familiar. It would blow the competition *out of the water.*

What was gained in catering to the grognards was lost in people who are familiar with the WH universe but prefer the familiar D20 mechanic.  

Does that mean I think doing a non-D20 version was a *bad* idea? No. I honestly don't think that Green Ronin could have failed with the license based on its history and popularity, short (maybe) of crapping in a box and putting a price tag on it. Even then, as long as the crap had the Warhammer brand, it might do decently well.


----------



## Ourph

buzz said:
			
		

> I was a playtester for WFRP2. Looking at the system as a whole, there are already a lot of similarities to d20 (a not-uncommon complaint during the testing). Converting the remaining bits would be very simple and would keep the feel. E.g., careers already funciton so much like classes that it would be trivial to convert them (assuming you were using classes at all in the end product).




But how far can you morph the system set forth in the SRD and still call the resulting game "d20".  If the end product has no equivalent of AC, the three Saving Throws, caster/spell levels, 3-18 abilities with bonus increases every two points, etc. (none of which are present in the WH system) is it still "d20".  If you retain those things in a d20 Warhammer ruleset, is it still Warhammer?  IMO, no.

Doing a d20 Warhammer setting book is possible, but doing a d20 Warhammer rulebook is an oxymoron AFAIC.  It's either d20 or Warhammer.  It can't be both.


----------



## Ourph

The_Universe said:
			
		

> My impression is that most "Warhammer fans" would have bought any "Warhammer" game - they might have griped about it being D20, but the true blue fanboys that its been posited are driving the strong sales of the games are exactly that - fanboys, one imagines that it couldn't have alienated all that many to the point of non-purchase, especially if it preserved the setting's "feel."




I don't know if I qualify as a true blue fanboy, but I AM a big fan of Warhammer, both past and present and I would have had absolutely zero interest in a d20 Warhammer setting book.  If such a thing had been published, I can almost guarantee I'd still be happily playing WHFRPv1 with no qualms about what I was missing with the "updated" version.


----------



## Turjan

The_Universe said:
			
		

> My point is that you can't tell me that Warhammer's such a big name that X and Y are important, and then act like D&D RPGers (and D20 players) are strangely ignorant of this fantasy gaming behemoth.  If there was a "D&D/D20 Warhammer," it would have a decent shot of surpassing even established popular campaign settings. It's that big, and that familiar. It would blow the competition *out of the water.*



Sorry, I'm not convinced. It doesn't make sense for one of the largest brands in fantasy gaming to tie its sales to the whims of the market leader in RPGs; it's like if Pepsi made its sales dependent on Coca Cola: this would damage brand recognition. And if you read all these threads on rpg.net about the vitriol coming from GW towards D&D (that might be a specifically British thing, though), this would have been a bit of a stretch.


----------



## SWBaxter

Turjan said:
			
		

> And if you read all these threads on rpg.net about the vitriol coming from GW towards D&D (that might be a specifically British thing, though), this would have been a bit of a stretch.




I think it's more a minis thing than a British thing - WOTC entered the minis market with the idea of becoming a major player, and that means trying to take some of GW's market share (I have no idea, and don't much care, if they actually have, the attempt is enough for a company to take notice). I agree that it's highly unlikely GW would want to sell PHBs by slapping a d20 logo on Warhammer, but I suspect their basic motivation has more to do with the corporate bottom line than anything else. At the end of the day, GW - like WOTC - has to provide financial statements to their ownership and justify the various business decisions they make, rules design issues are probably not a major issue at those meetings.


----------



## JohnSnow

Okay, I've spent the last few pages keeping my mouth shut and reading, but I need to chime in again. First off, to correct an analogy that I know a little something about...



			
				MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Wizards of the Coast could, for a cut of the profits, allow other companies to add their "content feed" as a premium service: $19.99/month for the d20 feed, $4.99/month for Malhavoc, $4.99/month for Green Ronin, etc. In effect, WotC becomes the cable company and the d20 publishers become the individual channels thereon.




As someone who runs a cable company, I think this is a bad analogy. With a few exceptions (many large cable companies own a few channels of their own), cable companies buy content from those who make it, package it together, and sell it to customers. In effect, they are "distributors." Here's the kicker. A television channel is what marketing people call "an experience good" - people have to be able to try it to decide whether they like it. When you want to break into the cable industry, you offer your product for FREE or, in some cases, pay the distributor to carry it (that's how ESPN built its following). Only after you've built up brand identity can you charge for it. That's the same principle behind giving people "free trials" of premium channels like HBO and Showtime. That doesn't work in roleplaying because once people have "tried out the game" they know how to play it.

On another topic:



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> I was a playtester for WFRP2. Looking at the system as a whole, there are already a lot of similarities to d20 (a not-uncommon complaint during the testing). Converting the remaining bits would be very simple and would keep the feel. E.g., careers already funciton so much like classes that it would be trivial to convert them (assuming you were using classes at all in the end product).
> 
> So, could it have been d20 and kept the WFRP feel? Absolutely, IMO. Should it have? I don't know; I'm betting the fanbase would have been annoyed enough that it would be a bad move. The deciding factor here is that WFRP was an existing game with an exising fanbase. I'm in agreement with Ryan (and Mearls, likely) that any new RPG should take a long, hard look before they decide not to go d20.




After our first session of the new WFRP, I commented to my group that Warhammer was basically d20 played in its "sweet spot" with limited advancement. The careers are like really short classes. Each 5% increase is equivalent to +1 on a d20. The difference is that Warhammer allows for a lot less variability in the success between a beginning character and a more advanced one. Shadowrun is basically similar to this. Obviously, you could run d20 this way, but the much more limited and discrete advancement would be a fundamental change to the game's basic assumption about increasing power levels.

One of the concepts of _Shadowrun_, IIRC, was that a very advanced character could be easily done in by a total rookie. There just wasn't that much of a power discrepancy between the two. One of the central "genre assumptions" is deciding how much a character's power level is going to increase. There's a very interesting discussion of this very issue in the .pdf _Four Color to Fantasy,_ which is, IMO, a fascinating toolkit for the d20 system.

Starting characters at the equivalent of 6th-level and capping advancement at 12th doesn't necessitate a new gaming system. However, you might want to break the advancement up into smaller discrete "chunks" than the level system allows. Otherwise, your character only "gets better" 6 times, which means either the campaign is short or you get bored using the same abilities for long periods, meaning you need something else (a great story maybe) to keep you entertained.


----------



## The_Universe

Pepsi's sales *are* dependent on how well Coca Cola does (both being sodas, and largely dependent on the same market trends), and fantasy gaming (of which D20 D&D and Warhammer are both a part) is similarly linked. I completely agree that many Warhammer *system* loyalists might not have purchased the game had it been something other than what it is. I merely suggest that what it lost in their lack of purchase, it likely would have gained from people like me. 

We can go round and round all day saying "I would have bought it if it was D20" and "I wouldn't have bought it if it was D20" without reaching any meaningful conclusions. My position is that Warhammer is such a brand behemoth that it would have succeeded *no matter what.*  If you can't accept that, then you really *aren't* a fanboy of the system *or* the setting.


----------



## The_Universe

SWBaxter said:
			
		

> I think it's more a minis thing than a British thing - WOTC entered the minis market with the idea of becoming a major player, and that means trying to take some of GW's market share (I have no idea, and don't much care, if they actually have, the attempt is enough for a company to take notice). I agree that it's highly unlikely GW would want to sell PHBs by slapping a d20 logo on Warhammer, but I suspect their basic motivation has more to do with the corporate bottom line than anything else. At the end of the day, GW - like WOTC - has to provide financial statements to their ownership and justify the various business decisions they make, rules design issues are probably not a major issue at those meetings.



 That makes sense, and I'd buy it for a dollar.


----------



## Turjan

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Pepsi's sales *are* dependent on how well Coca Cola does (both being sodas, and largely dependent on the same market trends), and fantasy gaming (of which D20 D&D and Warhammer are both a part) is similarly linked. I completely agree that many Warhammer *system* loyalists might not have purchased the game had it been something other than what it is. I merely suggest that what it lost in their lack of purchase, it likely would have gained from people like me.



I was talking specifically about brand recognition, not about the question how well the fantasy market does, and that's where your explanation doesn't hit the point. My soda example would go more like selling your Pepsi bottles in vendor machines with the Coca Cola logo on them, or serving it in Coca Cola cups. Both would be free advertising for your major competitor, and it would be mixing your brand logo with that of your competitor. That mixing is a boon for a very small company, but a definite 'no no' for a major competitor. That's basic economics. 



> We can go round and round all day saying "I would have bought it if it was D20" and "I wouldn't have bought it if it was D20" without reaching any meaningful conclusions. My position is that Warhammer is such a brand behemoth that it would have succeeded *no matter what.*  If you can't accept that, then you really *aren't* a fanboy of the system *or* the setting.



I don't see any connection of your last sentence with the preceding one, like you want to construct it. No, I'm no Warhammer fanboy. I simply stated that it doesn't make economical sense to mix the 'Warhammer' trademark in any way with the 'D&D' or 'd20' trademark, because it erodes brand recognition in the long run. As simple as that.


----------



## buzz

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Obviously, you could run d20 this way, but the much more limited and discrete advancement would be a fundamental change to the game's basic assumption about increasing power levels.



I dunno, in both games you're accumulating XP by adventuring and then increasing your abilities at certain breakpoints. It'd be easy to create short, low-power-creep classes a la _Darkness & Dread_ as a replacement for careers. And since hit points are not integral to "being d20", you just replace them with "Wound Points" or whatever highly-lethal damage system you want.

I just don't see it as much of a stretch.


----------



## The_Universe

Turjan said:
			
		

> I was talking specifically about brand recognition, not about the question how well the fantasy market does, and that's where your explanation doesn't hit the point. My soda example would go more like selling your Pepsi bottles in vendor machines with the Coca Cola logo on them, or serving it in Coca Cola cups. Both would be free advertising for your major competitor, and it would be mixing your brand logo with that of your competitor. That mixing is a boon for a very small company, but a definite 'no no' for a major competitor. That's basic economics.
> 
> 
> I don't see any connection of your last sentence with the preceding one, like you want to construct it. No, I'm no Warhammer fanboy. I simply stated that it doesn't make economical sense to mix the 'Warhammer' trademark in any way with the 'D&D' or 'd20' trademark, because it erodes brand recognition in the long run. As simple as that.





> I don't see any connection of your last sentence with the preceding one, like you want to construct it. No, I'm no Warhammer fanboy. I simply stated that it doesn't make economical sense to mix the 'Warhammer' trademark in any way with the 'D&D' or 'd20' trademark, because it erodes brand recognition in the long run. As simple as that.



I don't see them as necessarily competitive brands, even though they're both large brands in a similar market. Though the point about the D&D miniatures game competing with Warhammer certainly does make a point against my original position (a convincing one, in fact). I don't think the *rules of the game* have anything to do with how well it does or doesn't do in the market - but I can certainly see why a company would explicitly avoid using a ruleset from a major competitor. My inital position was that Warhammer and D&D weren't competitors at all - just two big shareholders in the larger fantasy gaming market. But, I'm backing off of that position now.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Ourph said:
			
		

> But how far can you morph the system set forth in the SRD and still call the resulting game "d20".  If the end product has no equivalent of AC, the three Saving Throws, caster/spell levels, 3-18 abilities with bonus increases every two points, etc. (none of which are present in the WH system) is it still "d20".  If you retain those things in a d20 Warhammer ruleset, is it still Warhammer?  IMO, no.
> 
> Doing a d20 Warhammer setting book is possible, but doing a d20 Warhammer rulebook is an oxymoron AFAIC.  It's either d20 or Warhammer.  It can't be both.




Does Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay use a system based on Warhammer Fantasy Battles?  I've played the latter but haven't had the chance to pick up the former.  If so, its unique mechanics fill an important role (tying it to the minis game).  Otherwise, unless it has a significantly different level of mechanics (say, as rules-lite as SilCore or TriStat or moreso), those mechanics probably only existed in the first place to keep it from being a TSR copyright violation.

As to your individual questions, I'd say only one (AC) is integral to d20 in the way you phrased it.

AC - Fairly strongly part of the system, although an opposed d20 Def roll would be compatible.  It could tie into generic Weapon Skill ala WHFB, too.

3 saves - Ryan says they're almost a key part of the system; I'm not so sure.  C&C's ability score saves are one of its few real innovations and I wouldn't be surprised to see them supplant the existing saves.

caster/spell levels - Purely a D&Dism.  They have nothing to do with d20 and a d20 Warhammer neither needs nor wants such baggage.

3-18 abilities with bonus/2 levels - the ability scores themselves are part of d20.  Their having the structure they have is a D&Dism like spell levels; pure bonuses ala Blue Rose are almost strictly better, including for Warhammer.


----------



## buzz

Ourph said:
			
		

> But how far can you morph the system set forth in the SRD and still call the resulting game "d20".  If the end product has no equivalent of AC, the three Saving Throws, caster/spell levels, 3-18 abilities with bonus increases every two points, etc. (none of which are present in the WH system) is it still "d20".



I don't see any reason these things would not be present in a WFRP d20 game. Even if they were not, it seems to still qualify as d20 by Ryan's definition. I mean, True20 ditches those last two and addds on tot he second, and it's still recognizably d20 (if not d20STL).



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> If you retain those things in a d20 Warhammer ruleset, is it still Warhammer?  IMO, no.



Only if the WFRP1 mechanics are strongly tied to the conception of the Warhammer brand you have in your mind. This is one of the reasons GR decided not to go that route, as I udnerstand it. Mehcanically, I don't think there's anyting about the WFRP play experience that demands its system over another; d20, WFRP, _Burning Wheel_, and GURPS would probably handle it fine.

The Traveller universe is a good example of this. Classic Traveller, Megaraveller, Traveller:TNE, T4e, T20, and GURPS Traveller are all different systems, but are all recognizably Traveller (TNE may be an exception).

The fanbase, however, would probably have issues with such a change. And, as Pramas said above, the brand is powerful enough that they can forego d20 and not affect sales.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

buzz said:
			
		

> ...Mehcanically, I don't think there's anyting about the WFRP play experience that demands its system over another; d20, WFRP, _Burning Wheel_, and GURPS would probably handle it fine.



Are you seriously saying that using any of those systems would provide the same tone and style of play? 

If someone can make d20 feel like Burning Wheel or GURPS in play, then I guess I can see why they'd use d20 for everything.


----------



## shadow

OK, I failed my save and decided to get into the discussion.

Rules-lite RPGs are aimed at specific audiences, and thus have some advantages for certain groups.  I see three main advantages to the rules-lite approach.

1. Character creation - In many role playing games, character creation can be a major hassle.  With the advent of skills and feats in 3.xe, character creation has often become an exercise in min-maxing; each specific feat needs to be weighed against other skills and feats.  In my experience, it has not been unusual for a group to spend over an hour making 3.xe characters.  However, with rules-lite RPGs, character creation takes much less time.
Case in point, a few weeks ago, a few players in our group were unable to show.  As a result, the DM decided to play a one shot Castles & Crusades game.  We were able to make fully equiped characters in less than 20 minutes.

2. Easy for new gamers - Let's face it, some of the game systems that we use have a lot of complicated rules.  Although 3.x rules might not seem that bad for us gamers that have been playing a long time, they can seem completely confusing to new gamers.  A while back a player's girlfriend wanted to start gaming.  At first, playing 3.5, she was completely confused by all the different skills, feats, and special rules.  But, after switching to Castles & Crusades, she suddenly got it.

3. Emphasis on role-playing rather than number crunching - With the emphasis on miniatures, 3.5 has in many ways reverted back to a miniature wargame in terms of combat.  Rather than focusing on heroic, fantastic combat, players are encouraged to think in terms of numbers and strategy.  This is true in areas besides combat as well.  With rules covering all types of situations, there is often a tendancy toward metagame thinking rather than roleplaying.

However, with that said there are some disadvantages to the rules-lite approach.  Namely, the DM has to make a lot of ad-hoc rulings.  That could be a problem for inexperienced DMs.  Also, some players may enjoy strategic combat. over roleplaying  There is nothing wrong with  that, it's simply a different play style.  Ultimately rules-lite RPGs are a matter of taste.

Just my 2cp


----------



## Ourph

buzz said:
			
		

> I don't see any reason these things would not be present in a WFRP d20 game.




I don't either, which is exactly my point.  If you make Warhammer d20, it's not really Warhammer anymore.  It's just another d20 setting/genre book like d20 CoC or d20 Traveller.



> Even if they were not, it seems to still qualify as d20 by Ryan's definition. I mean, True20 ditches those last two and addds on tot he second, and it's still recognizably d20 (if not d20STL).




If we're using such a loose definition of d20 then, by default, WHFRPv2 is a d20 game, because what you've just told me is that you can change nearly every core rule mechanic in the SRD and the game will still qualify as d20. 



> *Only if the WFRP1 mechanics are strongly tied to the conception of the Warhammer brand you have in your mind.* <snip> Mehcanically, I don't think there's anyting about the WFRP play experience that demands its system over another; d20, WFRP, _Burning Wheel_, and GURPS would probably handle it fine.




And why would they not be?  Aren't the core d20 mechanics strongly tied to the conception of the d20 brand you have in your mind?  They obviously are for The Universe (who won't buy WFRP simply because it's not d20***).

I play Warhammer because I like the mechanics.  I like the setting too, but if I preferred D&D I'd just play D&D set in my own homebrewed Old World setting.  The setting is the setting, the game is the mechanics.  I like the WHFRP game, both old and new versions and that's why I play it.  I realize many d20 fans simply cannot grasp the concept that there are people out there who don't share their enthusiasm for the d20 game model, but they do actually exist, and I suspect quite a few of them are now happily playing WFRPv2.

Thank goodness Chris and the rest of the group at GR who worked on the project had the balls to resist assimilation by the HasBorg.   

***_Which leaves me completely bewildered.  On one hand we have people saying that you can fold, spindle and mutilate the rules in the SRD into very nearly any conceivable configuration and still call the resulting game "d20", but we also have people who look at a game that - by most measures - isn't any further removed mechanics-wise from the rules in the SRD than many nominally "d20" games and saying they won't buy it because it's "not d20".  I really just don't get it._


----------



## BryonD

shadow said:
			
		

> OK, I failed my save and decided to get into the discussion.




No dispute on the different preferences for different people.  But I'd like to throw out my take one your three points.

1) I agree that 3E char creation can take longer.  To me that is no problem because I enjoy it.
I find the min maxing comment to be a gross generalization that applies to 3E groups no more or no less to another game community.  Rules lite takes away RP customization potential every bit as much as it takes away min max potential.  It cuts both ways.  

The "joy" in the ability to crank out a character in 20 minutes and dive back in seems to run exactly contrary to idea of deep role playing.  Your char dies so you crank out another semi-clone and hit the ground running?  I can see the appeal, but I can't see how that makes a more RP less min/max case.

2) I agree completely.  Rules lite is an excellent way to get starters in.  
Some of your other pro-rules lite people are claiming the exact opposite, that beginners NEED lots of rules and only a "mature" player can handle rules lite. I find that absurd and it appears your experience syncs with mine here.

3) I can't even begin to see how number crunching is at odds with role playing.  Again, I can see lots of reasons that groups may not want to use a battle mat, minis, etc...  But that it somehow magically blocks out roleplaying doesn't stand to reason.  My group uses a mat and minis and we have battles that frequently last 2 hours (cutting one down to 15 min would be as gratifying to me, personally, as reading a baseball box score and saying that I saw the game).  And we role play the characters to the hilt, both in and out of battle.  A robust mechanical model of the game world reality in no way detracts from pretenting to be a persona within that world.


----------



## BryonD

Ourph said:
			
		

> I play Warhammer because I like the mechanics.  I like the setting too, but if I preferred D&D I'd just play D&D set in my own homebrewed Old World setting.  The setting is the setting, the game is the mechanics.  I like the WHFRP game, both old and new versions and that's why I play it.  I realize many d20 fans simply cannot grasp the concept that there are people out there who don't share their enthusiasm for the d20 game model, but they do actually exist, and I suspect quite a few of them are now happily playing WFRPv2.




I've only palyed WHFRP a couple times, many moons ago.  So I can't speak with much wisdom here at all.

But I think this is exactly right.

I like D20.  But D20 *ISN'T* WHFRP.  I can easily see playing Grim Tales in the WH setting.  But that still would not be WHFRP.  Taking some of the core mechanics out of WHFRP would make it not be WHFRP just as much as taking things like classes out of D&D would make it not be D&D.

Calling D20 Warhammer Fantasy "WHFRP" would be just as wrong as calling Grim Tales or Mutant and Masterminds "Dungeons and Dragons".


----------



## Ourph

BryonD said:
			
		

> The "joy" in the ability to crank out a character in 20 minutes and dive back in seems to run exactly contrary to idea of deep role playing.  Your char dies so you crank out another semi-clone and hit the ground running?  I can see the appeal, but I can't see how that makes a more RP less min/max case.




I agree.  I enjoy rules-lite games, but not because they facilitate or encourage deeper roleplaying.  I like them for "beer & pretzels" gaming because it's easy to throw something together for a night of fun.  I really don't think rules-lite/heavy has anything to do with the depth or amount of roleplaying a group chooses to engage in.



> 2) I agree completely.  Rules lite is an excellent way to get starters in.
> Some of your other pro-rules lite people are claiming the exact opposite, that beginners NEED lots of rules and only a "mature" player can handle rules lite.




I think this depends on what you're using the game for.  Newbies are probably more likely to engage in the kind of "beer & pretzels" type gaming I described above.  Using rules-lite systems for in-depth, long-term campaigns does, I think, require a certain level of comfort with the whole idea of creating and adjudicating that newbies might not be up to.  But that doesn't mean a creative and judicious newbie can't get there PDQ.  I certainly think the best recipe for introducing new people to gaming is a rules-lite system with an experienced and mature GM.  Then you get the best of both worlds (fast play, low barrier to entry and someone who has experience making calls that keep the game running smoothly).


----------



## BryonD

I agree with all of your points.

However, I would say that *any* in-depth, long-term campaign requires that level of comfort, regardless of degree of rules.  And then less rules on top still requires a little less experience.  Not, is automatically *FOR* the less experienced.  Not at all.  But there is that degree of less *requirement*.


----------



## JohnSnow

A couple points...



			
				buzz said:
			
		

> I dunno, in both games you're accumulating XP by adventuring and then increasing your abilities at certain breakpoints. It'd be easy to create short, low-power-creep classes a la Darkness & Dread as a replacement for careers. And since hit points are not integral to "being d20", you just replace them with "Wound Points" or whatever highly-lethal damage system you want.
> 
> I just don't see it as much of a stretch.




Neither do I. I was just trying to make the point that rather than giving out experience points that accumulate to give you a level bonus (and all that comes along with it), you break that level bonus into its 10 (or 12, or whatever) constituent pieces. To take a specific D&D example, a fighter who "levels up" improves his defensive capability, a couple skills, his melee and ranged weapon skills, and learns 1/2 of a combat feat. In WFRP terms, that's about 5-6 "advances" per level.

I agree with you that it's totally doable. But it's quite a deviation from the D20 norm. Essentially, it's more compatible with a point-buy type version - like Green Ronin's own _Mutants and Masterminds_.

WFRP gives xp in 100s but the minimum cost for advances is 100 and they're all round numbers. As a result, you might as well drop the extra zeros and just call them "advances" rather than giving out experience points you number in the hundreds.

For the record, I don't think Ryan holds any particular bias for D&D (moreso than the average gamer, anyway). He has just pointed out that, for some reason, even though it wasn't first, D&D captured more of the market than its competitors. That implies that gamers, on average, judged D&D "more buyable" (dare I presume "better?") than its competition. Since the only things that distinguish D&D from its competition are its mechanic and, to a lesser extent, its "core story," its success must be due to one of those 2 things. Since the core story was borrowed a LOT, that probably doesn't explain it. Therefor, the point is that for doing D&D's core story, the d20 mechanic is "better."

What was being marketed by the alternatives? Either more "detail" or games that added something to the D&D mechanic (which they often dumped just to avoid being sued for copyright infringement). Interestingly, TSR had the system sitting under their noses - they could have swiped the "all the same mechanic" idea from Top Secret and combined it with the d20 for tasks AGES ago. They "half got it" when they created _Alternity_. They standardized the mechanic across the system, but they tried to replace the D20 mechanic with something MUCH more complex. And gamers, as a whole, didn't take to it.

Near as I can tell, when they made 3e, WotC sat down and looked at that mechanic. What did D&D really HAVE over its competition, mechanics-wise? Answer - a simple combat resolution system. So they took D&D, and adopted the _Alternity_ concept of universal task resolution, and class + skill characters, created mechanics for setting difficulty numbers in non-combat situations so the core mechanic could handle more than just combat, and the d20 System was born.

On a related topic:



			
				MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> AC - Fairly strongly part of the system, although an opposed d20 Def roll would be compatible. It could tie into generic Weapon Skill ala WHFB, too.
> 
> 3 saves - Ryan says they're almost a key part of the system; I'm not so sure. C&C's ability score saves are one of its few real innovations and I wouldn't be surprised to see them supplant the existing saves.
> 
> caster/spell levels - Purely a D&Dism. They have nothing to do with d20 and a d20 Warhammer neither needs nor wants such baggage.
> 
> 3-18 abilities with bonus/2 levels - the ability scores themselves are part of d20. Their having the structure they have is a D&Dism like spell levels; pure bonuses ala Blue Rose are almost strictly better, including for Warhammer.




That the base AC is equivalent to "taking 10" on a Defense Roll is well-established. That Palladium books got sued because this was the core mechanic of their combat system is also pretty well-established. All having a "Parry skill" and "Dodge skill" does is add an extra roll to combat. The "defense roll" option is even in the 3.5 DMG.

I think Ryan meant that the concept of "saving throws" are a key part of the system, not the fact that there are 3 of them. He was essentially saying D&D needs saving throws. If you think the game needs more than D&D's "core 3," you can do that. Even D&D allows for "Str-based" Fort saves, "cha-based" Will saves, and so forth. Worth thinking about...

The ability scores are another D&D legacy. You can change their range, or alter the bonues, or use point-buy or whatever. The only reason for 3d6 is that it produces a bell curve with mostly average results, a few good ones and a few bad ones.

The spell system is integral to D&D, NOT d20. Alternative magic systems is an innovation I wish we'd see more of. The game finally has a few (_Wheel of Time, Midnight, Black Company,_ the forthcoming _Iron Heroes_, and so forth.

Now, on to some of the _Alternity_ concepts...



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> Alternity on the other hand, had three wound totals, with very different consequences for taking damage in each, and body armor had a definite effect to ward off different types of damage. While not quite as simple as d20 hit points, it definitely gives the feel of dramatic wounds, without making calculations too difficult, and it's a system I miss from time to time due to its lack of circulation in the d20 community.




_Alternity_ was a fascinating game that might qualify as being OGL-compliant. Maybe. More on that below, however first I'm going to quote from the Alternityrpg website as part of my response...



> Most games fall into one of two categories, class/level based (like D&D), or skill-based (like GURPS). Alternity has taken the best of each style. While there are classes for characters (such as Tech Op or Combat Spec), they are simply rough templates to help players to get a handle on their new creations...The skill system is driven by ability scores, so that a hero with high strength will be better at hand-to-hand combat, while one with high intelligence will be better at programming a computer.
> 
> *All die-rolls are based on the control die, a d20*. Situation Dice are added to or subtracted from this roll, which is compared to the ability scores, modified by the skill. To succeed, the roll must equal or undercut the ability score (for instance, Personality if the hero is trying to sweet-talk a customs officer). _Penalties are added to the roll_, which makes it harder to equal or undercut the required score, and bonuses are subtracted from the roll...
> 
> So bonuses and penalties are expressed as situation dice, which are added or subtracted from the roll of the control die. For instance, if one is trying to grab a rope thrown from a ship in heavy seas, the GM may rule that the hero must roll against Dexterity with a +3 step penalty, to account for the difficulty of the task. In this case, the hero would have to roll a d20 (the control die), and add d8 to the roll (the situation die). Beating the required score spectacularly will result in a better than hoped-for success, while failing the roll miserably will result in a disastrous botch-up.




It was a cool system, but I always found the implementation a bit wonky. On the other hand, likening a die roll to a numeric penalty or bonus is not new, or particularly excluded from d20. The defense roll above is one example. Opposed skill checks is another. "Hyper Rolls" in _Four Color to Fantasy_ is a third. Armor DR as a variable is a fourth, and so on. The core task resolution is still a d20. Other than having high ability scores (So you could roll under them) and penalties as additions and benefits as subtractions, (good god, was everyone at TSR THAT influenced by THAC0??), it's just not that different.

For instance, nothing about the d20 mechanic prevents you from using a +1d4 rather than +2, or a +1d12 rather than +6. Or about ruling that failing by 1 is different than failing by 10, or that beating a DC by 20 ought to be worth more than doing it by 1. In fact, I think Mike Mearls is using the former in the "armor as DR" rules for _Iron Heroes_ while the latter (at least on the success side) is being tapped for that game's "skill challenge" system. Mearls seems to be retaining hit points primarily in order to retain compatibility with the D&D monster manuals.

As an aside, Bill Slavicsek probably deserves an enormous amount of credit for the creation of the d20 System. He used difficulty numbers in WEG's _Star Wars_, then designed [/i]Alternity[/i], and then went back to difficulty numbers (same levels of "easy (5)," "average (10)," "tough (15)," "challenging (20)," "formidable (25)," "heroic (30)," and "nearly impossible (40+)" as SW) in d20. Coincidence? I doubt it. I'd say Bill was building on the D&D mechanic from the beginning. The default roll of 3d6 produces the same average, so you can set an "average" task DN at 10, the default combat TN in D&D. Heck, if you like d6's, _Unearthed Arcana_ tells you how to use 3d6 to replace the d20 rolls, making bonuses matter more and chance matter less.


----------



## romp

Pramas said:
			
		

> There were mechanical issues (a big one being that I wanted the game to be far more newbie friendly that D&D 3.5) but actually those were secondary. If I had really wanted to, I'm sure I could have rewritten the d20 rules to reflect the Warhammer world..




I would have thought it was the desire to have the stats reflect at least somewhat the mini wargame. That seemed to have been the goal of the first edition since its stats and stat block were virtually identical with the mini wargame.


----------



## Pramas

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> As an aside, Bill Slavicsek probably deserves an enormous amount of credit for the creation of the d20 System.




In fact, he does not. He was not on the core design team and he did not get involved in the development of the rules even to the extent of Peter Adkison. 



> He used difficulty numbers in WEG's _Star Wars_, then designed [/i]Alternity[/i], and then went back to difficulty numbers (same levels of "easy (5)," "average (10)," "tough (15)," "challenging (20)," "formidable (25)," "heroic (30)," and "nearly impossible (40+)" as SW) in d20. Coincidence? I doubt it.




First off, Bill didn't design WEG's Star Wars, Greg Costikyan did. Second, the d6 System that powered it wasn't even really created by Greg Costikyan, but the the guys at Chaosium (specifically Sandy Petersen, Lynn Willis, and Greg Stafford). Those guys designed the Ghostbusters game under contract for West End. That came out in 1986 and it is commonly credited with pioneering the difficulty number concept. Costikyan took this basic system (while not crediting the Chaosium crew by the by) and based the Star Wars game on it. First edition of that came out in 1987. 

I'm all for credit where it's due, but Bill's role in all these developments was peripheral at best.


----------



## Pramas

romp said:
			
		

> I would have thought it was the desire to have the stats reflect at least somewhat the mini wargame.




Nope, not at all. GW does not see the RPG as an exension of the wargame, but of the larger Intellectual Property.


----------



## buzz

Ourph said:
			
		

> If we're using such a loose definition of d20 then, by default, WHFRPv2 is a d20 game, because what you've just told me is that you can change nearly every core rule mechanic in the SRD and the game will still qualify as d20.



I'm going by Ryan's priority list for what makes a game d20. FWIW, the idea of Warhammer d20 I have wouldn't need to change much at all.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> And why would they not be?



If we were talking about a game without the history or brand recognition of Warhammer. As Pramas mentioend above, the d20 Black Company RPG essentially could serve as Warhammer. For BC, being d20 is a non-issue, becasue there's never been a BC RPG before. WFRP, however, has been around for 20-odd years and has a big fanbase. While there's no mehcanical reason it couldn't be d20, there are marketing ones.


----------



## buzz

shadow said:
			
		

> Rules-lite RPGs are aimed at specific audiences, and thus have some advantages for certain groups.  I see three main advantages to the rules-lite approach.
> 
> 1. Character creation
> 2. Easy for new gamers
> 3. Emphasis on role-playing rather than number crunching



I don't see that any of these aspects are better served by one methodology over another. #1 is always going to have a learning curve for beginners, but will be a non-issue for experienced players of the system. #2 is debatable; D&D has proven to be very good for new gamers, as it's actually brain-dead easy to roll up a PC without any character conception. #3, as shown by the Monte Cook blog entry posted above, has nothing to do with crunch.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

Man, buzz, I'm trying to see where you're coming from. (I'm pretty sure it's the same place as RyanD, not that I think you're just echoing him, but because you both seem to have the same perspective.)

I've taught people to play roleplaying games, recently. We used systems where characters had  three attributes and two or three special abilities from a list of a dozen. Combat was attribute vs. attribute, three or four rounds at the most. The rules take up about forty pages, half of that for things only the GM needs to know.

They've told me that this level of crunch was too much for their comfort level. Even breaking up combat into individual rounds instead of one roll kind of bored them. So we went lighter.

I wouldn't even think about springing d20 on these folks. But they are gamers now. We play regular sessions, and it's not freeform.

My impression is that you're either not aware of or not interested in this segment of the hobby. I admit that they're not going to buy rulebooks and supplements, so I can see why "the industry" would ignore them. But they do exist.


----------



## buzz

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> My impression is that you're either not aware of or not interested in this segment of the hobby. I admit that they're not going to buy rulebooks and supplements, so I can see why "the industry" would ignore them. But they do exist.



No, I'm just trying to assert that, as Mearls and Dancey have been saying, there isn't _necessarily_ any inherent advantage to one path over the other in the three areas that were cited. _Any_ system is going to have to be dumbed down when being taught, especially to people new to rp'ing (which makes the chargen argument moot, IMO, as newbies should not be dealing with chargen right off the bat). Said newbies will then rise to the level of complexity that suits their sensibilities and capabilities.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> My impression is that you're either not aware of or not interested in this segment of the hobby. I admit that they're not going to buy rulebooks and supplements, so I can see why "the industry" would ignore them. But they do exist.




But this cuts to the core of the issue, at least for me.  Those peripheral people will do whatever they do, and it is essentially impossible for a game company to meaningfully contribute to their experience.  They're no more a viable market for the industry than people who can't read.  What they do is (or at least should be) totally irrelevant to what game companies produce.

They don't need the game companies, and the game companies don't need them.  They're non-interactive segments of the population.

There's also the matter of 'the greatest good for the greatest number.'  I think it's safe to say that the number of people who like reasonably complex RPGs, such as d20, HERO, GURPS, or even Storyteller, Unisystem or SilCore, vastly outweigh the number of people who prefer ultralight games.  It makes sense and, from a certain perspective, even serves the public good for any and all game companies to focus on games of at least medium complexity.

I gather that Ryan's study showed gamers preferring heavy games to medium.  I honestly prefer medium to heavy, myself, but only in point-buy systems (light to medium class systems are, like pre-3.x D&D or C&C, far too fixed upon their pseudo-archetypes for my tastes) - but I'd rather see the industry thrive and produce product I like rather than falter trying to market product I like better.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> But this cuts to the core of the issue, at least for me.  Those peripheral people will do whatever they do, and it is essentially impossible for a game company to meaningfully contribute to their experience.  They're no more a viable market for the industry than people who can't read.  What they do is (or at least should be) totally irrelevant to what game companies produce.
> 
> They don't need the game companies, and the game companies don't need them.  They're non-interactive segments of the population.




So are the ground rules of the conversation that we're talking about RPGs that sell in large numbers? Basically, "stuff like D&D"?

Is the purpose of the roleplaying hobby to provide a market for regular supplements? 

Are those people out there who play out of print RPGs not relevant either?

Look, a fair number of people in this thread are here because RyanD showed a rather profound lack of understanding about what rules-light games can be. If we're only talking about how to sell game books to people in an existing gamer market, and maybe growing that market a bit, I'll bow out.

But look at, to throw an example out, board games. Lots of people play board games, but if your friend owns the game, you don't need to spend any money on it. You don't buy quarterly supplements. You don't need extensive prep time to be ready to play. There's no "board game culture", in that lots of people play without identifying them as a focus in their lives. But there's a market for board games.

The games I've been playing are like board games in terms of market, although they're still roleplaying games. You buy the rulebook, you get friends together, you play. Now we do extensive campaigns, and there's a lot of things going on in the games, but most of those things we're coming up with use the rules as a guideline. We're not mining supplements for ideas for things to add to the games. We don't need to, because the system is simple but comprehensive enough for our needs..

These games are from small-press publishers, and while none of them support their designers full time, they do turn a profit. Commercially successful, I'd say.

Maybe this is just pie-in-the-sky, but I think that the potential market for people who would play games about "Fictional characters dealing with compelling situations" is a lot larger than the market for games about "Party of adventurers dealing with conflicts, including tactical realistic combat, to grow in power". But people in the first category aren't going to be interested in complex mechanics or extensive prep time. 

If that potential market is as irrelevant to the roleplaying industry as people who can't read, then, okay, that tells me a lot. I grant you that they're irrelevant _right now_, but is there any value in trying to reach these people?


----------



## SweeneyTodd

buzz said:
			
		

> No, I'm just trying to assert that, as Mearls and Dancey have been saying, there isn't _necessarily_ any inherent advantage to one path over the other in the three areas that were cited. _Any_ system is going to have to be dumbed down when being taught, especially to people new to rp'ing (which makes the chargen argument moot, IMO, as newbies should not be dealing with chargen right off the bat). Said newbies will then rise to the level of complexity that suits their sensibilities and capabilities.



Okay. I get it. You're talking about traditional roleplaying games, and I'm not. 

I've got Primetime Adventures in my hand. It's a 75 page, paperback-sized booklet. Character creation is 8 pages with examples. The mechanics take up 23 pages, of which only 10 need to be read by someone other than the GM.

This is not a system that has to be dumbed down for a newbie. To the extent players increase in skill over the course of a campaign, it's not mechanics mastery, but things like characterization, framing interesting conflicts, and the like. I'm dearly looking forward to running a campaign with it soon.

If this isn't a roleplaying game, okay. Point me to another forum where I can talk about not-roleplaying games where you portray a character who grows through dealing with challenges and conflicts.


----------



## Turjan

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> If that potential market is as irrelevant to the roleplaying industry as people who can't read, then, okay, that tells me a lot. I grant you that they're irrelevant _right now_, but is there any value in trying to reach these people?



But this might, indeed, be the core problem. Ryan Dancey argued for rules-heavy games from the point of view of perceived player preferences. You and me, both, think that this is not the whole story. Nevertheless, I believe that rules-light games are much less interesting for companies than rules-heavy ones, because you cannot sell so many rules supplements. You can try your luck with settings and adventures, but even here, I think the market is smaller in the case of rules-light games, because you don't need pages and pages of stat blocks, like in d20; people can just use the latest novel they liked.

This means that the central point may simply be that rules-light games are not expected to make enough money to make them an interesting product for a larger company like Hasbro.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

Turjan said:
			
		

> This means that the central point may simply be that rules-light games are not expected to make enough money to make them an interesting product for a larger company like Hasbro.



Boom. Bam. I agree totally. Especially when you compare them to a product that you know can continue selling supplements for years. Focusing on the existing market is a guaranteed way to make bank; there's no incentive to look at other concepts.

My frustration in the thread has been that I can't tell a lot of the times whether people are takling about "worth Hasbro publishing", "worth a small press publishing", "worth my group playing and enjoying", and "worth exploring as a concept". 

Hasbro's got a good thing going with D&D, as they do with Magic. But I feel like a lot of the conversation in the thread, especially the quote from RyanD at the beginning, was like someone saying "Simple card games aren't as good as Magic" and you find out the reason is because Hearts doesn't have mana resource allocation or counterspells. And *then* you find out the real reason they're not as good is because once you have 52 cards, you don't need more.  But there are games that are not card games, that are not Magic, and some of those games are fun.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

What I'm talking about is:

a) Games that can turn sufficient profit to support their creators, publishers and publishers' staff full time.  Board games are an example, as are many CCGs, D&D, Warhammer Fantasy/40k and the Storyteller games.

a.1) Products within that category that can be sold to the RPG market.  That's probably limited, at the moment, to D&D/certain d20 or OGL (such as Mongoose) and Storyteller, and possibly Palladium, GURPS and WHFR.

Or:

b) Products that sell to a similar market to a.1), but which do not sell in sufficient quantities to regularly be a subset of a).  This usually includes SilCore, Tri-Stat, HERO, Unisystem and the like.

Note that I'm not sure where the dividing line falls.  D&D, Storyteller and GURPS are the only systems I'm sure are a.1), and particularly in the third case I'm not sure how true that is for freelancers.

My interest (and, I assume, Ryan Dancey's) is in finding out what separates a.1) from b), and how a.1) can improve.


----------



## Warbringer

*Why the Discusson?*

OK, I'm sure I'll flamed because I read only the first 3 pages and the last 3 pages of the post, but I'm left with the lingering question... Why the Discussion? Why did Ryan initially post (or whatever forum) and why was this playtest facilitation being performed?

It's now the Summer of 2005 and back in the days of rumored 3.5 release there was a feeling that 4.0 would possibly appear late 2006/ early 2007? Is 4.0 if the offing? and is it likely to be rules lite?

Are we looking at the possibility that 4.0 is build around the miniatures game (which as far as I can tell is rules lite 3.5 w/o roleplay). 

just a question...


----------



## Psion

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> Boom. Bam. I agree totally. Especially when you compare them to a product that you know can continue selling supplements for years.




Coincidentally, there is a thread going on over on RPGnet talking about how unfair it is that FUDGE is being given the short end of the stick when it comes to support.


----------



## Zudrak

I give up.  I made it to page 15 and I quit.  I started reading yesterday and I wanted to make it to page 19, but I wave the white flag.   :\ 

I don't hate 3e, but I am switching to C&C because of the time saved in prep time and in combat.  My brother and I are grognards.  The other two in our group are not.  But we have all agreed to switch to C&C when (if? -- personal goings-on) we resume gaming.  I want to play a game that is like 1e in terms of pace and fun while having some of the cleaner elements of 3e (AC increases and becomes the number "to hit", etc.).

Happy gaming,
Zudrak


----------



## JohnSnow

Pramas said:
			
		

> In fact, he does not. He was not on the core design team and he did not get involved in the development of the rules even to the extent of Peter Adkison.
> 
> ...<snip>
> 
> First off, Bill didn't design WEG's Star Wars, Greg Costikyan did. Second, the d6 System that powered it wasn't even really created by Greg Costikyan, but the the guys at Chaosium (specifically Sandy Petersen, Lynn Willis, and Greg Stafford). Those guys designed the Ghostbusters game under contract for West End. That came out in 1986 and it is commonly credited with pioneering the difficulty number concept. Costikyan took this basic system (while not crediting the Chaosium crew by the by) and based the Star Wars game on it. First edition of that came out in 1987.
> 
> I'm all for credit where it's due, but Bill's role in all these developments was peripheral at best.




Fair enough, and I stand corrected.

My (albeit inaccurate) assessment was based on Bill's involvement in the products. I recalled that he was part of the WEG _Star Wars_ effort, but didn't have my books handy to check what he did for it. He was Director of RPG R&D for WotC when 3e (and 3.5) came out (so, in the parlance of WotC, he's a developer, not a designer), a position he still holds, AFAIK. I assumed that meant he had something to do with guiding the efforts of the design team. If he didn't, I was mistaken and I'd be fascinated to hear from Bill (or others at WotC) what it is that Bill does.

As far as the Chaosium crew not getting credit for their work, in most industries and most cases, creative work done under contract is the property of the company doing the contracting, not the person or people doing the work. So I'm not surprised that WEG didn't feel any compulsion to give credit for something they owned. 

I thought there were difficulty numbers in a game I owned back before 1986, but my recollection is fuzzy. So I'm willing to accept the "commonly credited" Ghostbusters until I know better.

In a sense, I think it's safe to say that the first "difficulty number" was Armor Class (although it went down instead of up, and you had decreasing THAC0 instead of an increasing attack bonus, but the principle is there). So identifying the actual NUMBER in most instances took pages and tables, unless you had an _AD&D Fighting Wheel_ (TM) like I did/do (as an aside, I just discovered that mine, which is in superb shape, is worth over $100 to collectors - cool!).

However, I stand by the assertion I made that _Alternity_ strongly influenced 3e, if for no other reason that many of the same people who were involved in the creation of 3e (and 3.5 & _d20 Modern_ even moreso) worked on products for it. A quick list? - Rich Baker, Bill Slavicsek, Sean Reynolds, Monte Cook, Wolfgang Baur, Bruce Cordell, Rich Redman, JD Wiker, David Eckelberry, Christopher Perkins, and Andy Collins. Whew! I grant that leaves out Skip Williams, Jonathan Tweet, and Peter Adkison, but still!

And now I'm wayyy off topic. I'll post something more relevant next time...


----------



## JohnSnow

Okay, here's my more relevant comment. As some of you know, Akrasia was the DM/CK for my gaming group for slightly more than a year. Obviously, he and I have some differences of opinion about what we like in our games. However, we were able to play together just fine. In hashing this out offline, I sent a comment to him trying to explain that I think is relevant to the rules-light vs. rules-heavy argument. I liked how it came out, so I decided to post it here.

I have a confession to make that I haven't before now: I REALLY wanted to like _Castles & Crusades_, because the prep time for 3e is daunting for me as well. However, as both a player and a DM, I find C&C to be "incomplete." I guess this comes down to personality types. I prefer giving detailed descriptions of things that I know about. Let me make the point by way of an example.

As an improv actor at the Ren Faire, I have to "extemporize" things ALL the time. If I have to make it up out of whole cloth, I stink at it. But give me something to hang my creativity on and I can be really creative. I grant this is just me. I have friends who are perfectly good at coming up with bits out of thin air. Not all of them are as good at incorporating new things as I am, but that's why we work well together.

For me and my form of creativity, the 3e rules provide that "hook" I need for MY form of creativity. By contrast, the C&C ones fall short. However, I'm terribly frustrated by all the "balancing" and "stacking" issues - I've mentioned I hate the 3e magic system, right?

That's why I'm looking forward to Iron Heroes. I know Mearls has addressed the spell system and "magic items as power-ups" issues. The Feat Mastery System and the skill groups should make feat and skill selection a lot more straight-forward. And some of the things he's added to the game are about giving people (both players and GMs) more "hooks" of the kind I like to have. That all sounds like it will really appeal to me. Of course, for those who prefer making things up with less guidance, it's probably not the system for them.

And that's what I think this debate comes down to - personal taste vs. what people can work with. I think it's better for a game to provide rules that a gamer can choose not to use rather than to come out with fewer rules than people want, unless you're trying to market to a smaller niche of gamers. If someone doesn't want or need that many rules, they can chop stuff out. However, if you want more rules, they're already there and you don't have to put a lot of work into developing them, balancing them and so on. If there's something the game doesn't address, someone can come up with a mechanic for it and market it as an add-on.

I hope that 4e, if/when it materializes will be complete but modular. You'll be able to buy it, and use everything in the books as is, but there'll be lots of side notes that if you want to remove A, then you should take out B as well, and so forth. Sort of "rules complete" with notes for how to remove rules in balanced ways. Want a different magic system? Take out the default one and use one of several alternatives. Sort of setting it up so that d20 is the OS and it comes bundled with a suite of "software" that you can uninstall with ease. Then the OGL market really takes off as companies make money developing and marketing "programs" that run on the d20 OS.

Personally, I think that'd be the ideal.


----------



## buzz

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> This is not a system that has to be dumbed down for a newbie.



Well, I think it can depend on the newbie. 8 pages of chargen is diddly compared to the market leaders (D&D/d20, WoD, Palladium, GURPS), but it's still 6 more pages than the rules to Monopoly.  I find the biggest hurdle is getting people to understand the rp'ing concept, and then figure out if they find the concept appealing, and _then_ figure out if they're willing to do it via pen-n-paper instead of just popping _Final Fantasy_ into their Xbox.

Once you get past all that, the newb will eventually rise to their comfort level in terms of complexity, IME.


----------



## Psion

buzz said:
			
		

> Once you get past all that, the newb will eventually rise to their comfort level in terms of complexity, IME.




Yup.

I was teaching my daughter (7 yo at the time) to play, I was trying to shield her from the harrier aspects of skill accounting by just letting her pick a number of skills and max them out. By the time the character was 2nd level, she was no longer comfortable with that model and wanted to do things the right way and allocate all her points herself.


----------



## Turjan

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> That's why I'm looking forward to Iron Heroes. I know Mearls has addressed the spell system and "magic items as power-ups" issues. The Feat Mastery System and the skill groups should make feat and skill selection a lot more straight-forward. And some of the things he's added to the game are about giving people (both players and GMs) more "hooks" of the kind I like to have. That all sounds like it will really appeal to me. Of course, for those who prefer making things up with less guidance, it's probably not the system for them.



Somehow I have the feeling that Iron Heroes might be even more complicated than the original. But let's talk about that after I'll have had a look at it.


----------



## buzz

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> And that's what I think this debate comes down to - personal taste vs. what people can work with.



I have to wonder if what it boils down to is that the market has spoken, and the body of gamers that now and forever more will make up the majority of it demand a certain minimum level of crunch in their tabletop games. Though things seem weighted towards the "heavy" end of the spectrum, go too far in either direction and your potiental audience drops off.

All of which does not necessarily speak to quality, but just marketing and sustainability.


----------



## Ourph

buzz said:
			
		

> If we were talking about a game without the history or brand recognition of Warhammer. As Pramas mentioend above, the d20 Black Company RPG essentially could serve as Warhammer.




I think you're missing the point.  BC can't serve as Warhammer becaue it's not Warhammer mechanics.  It may be "Warhammer-like" or it may be the closest thing in-print to "d20 Warhammer", but it's not Warhammer.

I think it would help clarify things if you answered my question from the previous post.

The core d20 game mechanics are an important part of the marketing brand for d20 RPGs.  Part of the marketing strategy is giving people who like the d20 mechanics more of what they like.  If enthusiasm for a specific set of rules mechanics can be a selling point for d20, what makes you think the same can't be true for other game mechanics.

The assumption that the only value in retaining mechanics for WFRP that are similar to the original WFRP mechanics is "nostalgia" or "brand continuity" and the complete dismissal of the possibility that the mechanics actually have some inherent value in and of themselves is just a type of high-browed d20 elitism AFAIAC.  I sincerely hope that I'm misconstruing your comments and that's not the actual intent of what you're saying.


----------



## Turjan

Ourph said:
			
		

> The core d20 game mechanics are an important part of the marketing brand for d20 RPGs.  Part of the marketing strategy is giving people who like the d20 mechanics more of what they like.  If enthusiasm for a specific set of rules mechanics can be a selling point for d20, what makes you think the same can't be true for other game mechanics.



Just to stress this, I think the power curve that is inherent to d20 has been mentioned before. There is some wiggle room in the d20 mechanics, but most adaptations of d20 to a somewhat less steep power curve that I've seen did not look very convincing to me.


----------



## buzz

Ourph said:
			
		

> The assumption that the only value in retaining mechanics for WFRP that are similar to the original WFRP mechanics is "nostalgia" or "brand continuity" and the complete dismissal of the possibility that the mechanics actually have some inherent value in and of themselves is just a type of high-browed d20 elitism AFAIAC.  I sincerely hope that I'm misconstruing your comments and that's not the actual intent of what you're saying.



What I'm saying (and what I think RyanD was saying), is that there is nothing going on _mechanically_ in WFRP that couldn't be done with a d20 game. If you think that there is someting inherrently more "Warhammer" about rolling two d10s as oposed to one d20, then that's, IMO, your previous experience with the game kicking in. 

What really makes WFRP, as I understand it, is the feel of the _world_; even many of the long-time WFRP fans in the playtest stated that there was nothing particularly special about the mechanics of WFRP1, it was the _atmosphere_ that kept them interested. Mimicing this atmosphere is entirely possible using different mechanics (d20 or other). I mean, magic in WFRP2 works, mechanically, absolutely nothing like magic in WFRP1; it's a die pool, fer gosh sakes. I have yet to see anyone complaining that these mechanics "don't feel Warhammer".

Mechanics can have inherent value. Making _Everway_ d20 would be pretty pointless, as there are mechanics (the cards) and goals (freeform storytelling and a lack of focus on advancement) that simply would not translate; something would be lost in the conversion.

WFRP, otoh, has, IMO, goals pretty similar to D&D, with the Renaissance and Cthulhu mixed in and the lethality level increased. Nothing about these elements ties it to its current mechanics; you could replicate them with others pretty easily. Doing so (dramatically, at least) would probably alienate the existing fanbase, though. And, just like d20, you probably want them to be able to port some of their exiting expertise over to the new system to encourage adoption.


----------



## JohnSnow

buzz said:
			
		

> What I'm saying (and what I think RyanD was saying), is that there is nothing going on mechanically in WFRP that couldn't be done with a d20 game. If you think that there is someting inherrently more "Warhammer" about rolling two d10s as oposed to one d20, then that's, IMO, your previous experience with the game kicking in.




What he said.

Probability is probability. A 35% chance of success is a 35% chance of success whether I'm supposed to roll 35 or less on d100 or 14 or higher on a d20.

That said, WFRP fans want WFRP to be close to the game they remember. I don't think there's any theory that the newest edition of WFRP will expand the market for roleplaying games (or even _Warhammer_ much), as opposed to selling to those who are/were already interested in it. Ditto that for the soon-to-be-released new edition of _Tunnels & Trolls_. Some people might buy it for the nostalgia factor, but I doubt many people new to the hobby will buy it. I could, of course, be wrong.

And I think that's Ryan's point. You can keep making these games, and their older audience will continue to play them, but if you want a growing business, you're barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## Staffan

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> What he said.
> 
> Probability is probability. A 35% chance of success is a 35% chance of success whether I'm supposed to roll 35 or less on d100 or 14 or higher on a d20.



The question is (a) how you get those probabilities, and (b) how those probabilities interact with modifiers.
Let's take one D&D character and one GURPS character, in order to compare two relatively different systems. They're both climbers, and want to climb up a rock face. They both have a 75% chance of doing that. In D&D, that would be someone with Climb +9 versus a DC of 15 (very rough natural rock wall), while in GURPS it would be a Climb skill of 12.

Let's instead make things a little more difficult, by making them climb a stone wall - say, the wall in a dungeon. In D&D, you up the DC to 20, reducing the probability to 50%. In GURPS, a "stone wall" is -3 to Climb, which reduces the effective skill to 9. That's only a probability of 35-40%.

I'm not saying that either method is *better*, I'm just saying that the way modifiers interact are *different*.


----------



## Ourph

buzz said:
			
		

> What I'm saying (and what I think RyanD was saying), is that there is nothing going on _mechanically_ in WFRP that couldn't be done with a d20 game. If you think that there is someting inherrently more "Warhammer" about rolling two d10s as oposed to one d20, then that's, IMO, your previous experience with the game kicking in.




I think there's something inherently "Warhammer" about rolling vs. your own WS score to see if you "hit" independent of what your opponent might be doing or wearing (i.e. - there is no equivalent of Armor Class).  

I think there's something inherently "Warhammer" about either having a skill or not (i.e. - no skill "ranks").  

I think there's something inherently "Warhammer" about progression being tied to lifestyle 
changes, rather than simply the acquisition of XP (i.e. - assemble the required equipment/training for your career before entering it, rather than the reverse).

There are lots more.  Since you've played both WFRP and d20 games, I'm sure you're just as familiar with the differences in mechanics as I am.

Now I will be the first to admit you could take the SRD; fold, spindle and mutilate it into something wholly different; and come up with a game that reproduces those things using a d20 rather than a d10, but at that point any "networking efficiencies " your d20 game might have are basically gone.  Any familiarity someone might have with D&D or any other SRD-based d20 game is going to do them little to no good in terms of being familiar with your "Warhammer" ruleset.  If Ryan's earlier remark is accurate...



			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> My thesis is that the differences in these games, which I maintain exist for a number of reasons other than a mechanical need to vary from D20, all made the market "inefficient" to some degree by limiting the portability of people's knowledge of how to play one game when they played another, and by segregating design talent into small slices of mecanics that could not feed back into each other smoothly to improve the overall game experience for all players.




...then making changes significant enough to "Warhammerize" d20 will re-introduce all of the inefficiencies that d20 and the OGL are supposed to be eliminating.  I don't think there is any significant "networking efficiency" in simply using a d20 rather than a d10.  In other words, if you change the d20 system enough to replicate the Warhammer system, you're really not designing based on the "d20 system" anymore, no matter what dice you use.

If the game is similar enough to the core d20 system outlined in the SRD that it actually retains those "networking efficiencies", then the mechanics are significantly different enough that (while you may be playing "d20 Warhammer") you're not really playing "Warhammer".  For someone who plays Warhammer as much for the system as the setting, that's just not good enough.



> What really makes WFRP, as I understand it, is the feel of the _world_; even many of the long-time WFRP fans in the playtest stated that there was nothing particularly special about the mechanics of WFRP1, it was the _atmosphere_ that kept them interested.




This is the attitude that I have a real problem with.  Many d20 fans feel that Warhammer (and CoC and Traveller and Gamma World and Runequest and etc.) are nothing more than cool settings/genres with inferior rulesets tacked on.  Again, I call this d20 elitism in its most snobbish and unappealing form.  I think lots of d20 fans and publishers would like to think that every other popular game made its mark only based on its "fluff" and not on having a well designed rule system and that the world will thank them when they swoop in and "save" the game by retaining the great fluff and replacing the "inferior", "unevolved" rules with a "better" system.  Excellence in game design did not suddenly begin and just as abruptly end in the year 2000.   :\ 



> WFRP, otoh, has, IMO, goals pretty similar to D&D, with the Renaissance and Cthulhu mixed in and the lethality level increased. Nothing about these elements ties it to its current mechanics; you could replicate them with others pretty easily.




Exactly, the only thing you absolutely can't replicate about Warhammer with other mechanics is.....the Warhammer game mechanics.  Which, IMHO, are vastly superior to the core d20 system in just about every aspect.  I'm sure YM will V.


----------



## Akrasia

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> .... I don't think there's any theory that the newest edition of WFRP will expand the market for roleplaying games (or even _Warhammer_ much), as opposed to selling to those who are/were already interested in it....




Well, it might introduce RPGs to the WFB crowd.  That is a huge market that exists, that is already familiar with the world, and for the most part does not play RPGs.


----------



## Akrasia

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> ...
> And I think that's Ryan's point. You can keep making these games, and their older audience will continue to play them, but if you want a growing business, you're barking up the wrong tree.




Actually, based on Chris Pramas' comments in this  thread, I think WFRP *is* meant to appeal to new players.  One of his points (iirc) was that GW was one of the few companies out there that could compete with WotC in this way.

WFRP is certainly more 'newbie friendly' than the 3e PHB.  And all those shiny colour pages are, similarly, meant to appeal to new/young potential players.  WFRP can also be found in 'general bookstores' where, previously, only WotC and WW books could be found.


----------



## RyanD

Akrasia said:
			
		

> WFRP is certainly more 'newbie friendly' than the 3e PHB.



I picked up the WFRP book today at my local B&N.  I have not read it cover to cover (I haven't really read it at all, just a quick glance) but I gotta tell you, there's >no way< that book is "newbie friendly" if the 3E PHB is used as the baseline.

I can tell you based on lots of readily available data that "percentages" are less "user friendly" than whole numbers - that's not an RPG thing, that's just a math thing.  And percentages are one of the first things you see when you open the book.  That's just one of many, many things that makes the game "complex".

I'm not at all disparaging the book - I'm just saying that it is no paragon of entry level easiness.  (The >game< may be easier to play, but the presentation of the >rules< isn't.)

"Entry level" games have to be designed to be understood by the lowest common denominator - the person who has never played an RPG and does not have anyone to help understand the material.  Such products do not look like WFRP (or D&D, for that matter).



> WFRP can also be found in 'general bookstores' where, previously, only WotC and WW books could be found.



Frighteningly, I picked up my copy right next to the Book of Erotic Fantasy.

(That store has a remarkably good RPG selection, including Shadowrun, a whole bunch of Green Ronin product, lots of S&S stuff in addition to WoD and Exalted.)


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

RyanD said:
			
		

> I picked up the WFRP book today at my local B&N.  I have not read it cover to cover (I haven't really read it at all, just a quick glance) but I gotta tell you, there's >no way< that book is "newbie friendly" if the 3E PHB is used as the baseline.
> 
> I can tell you based on lots of readily available data that "percentages" are less "user friendly" than whole numbers - that's not an RPG thing, that's just a math thing.  And percentages are one of the first things you see when you open the book.  That's just one of many, many things that makes the game "complex".



Whole numbers vs. percentages does not make a *whole game* simple or not of course. 3e adds magnitudes of complexities in other places that WFRP keeps dead simple.


----------



## Akrasia

RyanD said:
			
		

> I picked up the WFRP book today at my local B&N.  I have not read it cover to cover (I haven't really read it at all, just a quick glance) but I gotta tell you, there's >no way< that book is "newbie friendly" if the 3E PHB is used as the baseline...




If you're claiming that WFRP is not 'newbie friendly' in that someone who has never played RPGs before is going to have a hard time getting the hang of the game, you're probably right.  But that was not really my claim.

If you're claiming that WFRP is not as 'newbie friendly' as the 3e PHB, I could not disagree more.

If you read the rules, you will see that (percentages aside) the rules are a 'lighter' than 3e in *many* important respects -- *especially* in terms of character generation, the magic system, and the kinds of modifiers that apply to skills.

Also, ironically, WFRP is easy to run *without* minis (unlike 3e combat).



			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> ...I can tell you based on lots of readily available data that "percentages" are less "user friendly" than whole numbers - that's not an RPG thing, that's just a math thing.  And percentages are one of the first things you see when you open the book.  That's just one of many, many things that makes the game "complex"...




Well, I'm not going to dispute your data, but it strikes me as odd that people have difficulty understanding the idea that 'climb skill of 80 percent' = 'the PC has an 80 percent chance of succeeding at climbing' (sorta like how most people understand that '80 percent chance of rain' means that there is an 80 percent chance of rain on the daily weather forcast).

At any rate, I suspect that newbies have an easier time understanding WFRP's skill system (skill percentage = percentage chance of success) than 3e's skill system (where it is not immediately clear what 'climb +4' means in terms of likely success).



			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> Frighteningly, I picked up my copy right next to the Book of Erotic Fantasy.
> 
> (That store has a remarkably good RPG selection, including Shadowrun, a whole bunch of Green Ronin product, lots of S&S stuff in addition to WoD and Exalted.)




That sounds like a good bookstore.


----------



## 2WS-Steve

I think it's likely a mistake to equate lack of mechancial complexity with newbie friendliness when it's really *conceptual* complexity that's the bugbear. RPGs are a unique form of game in their open-endedness; in all the other games you start playing as a kid (other than cops and robbers) you've got a defined range of choices and outcomes available to you: you roll dice and move around a board in Monopoly or Life; you move one piece at a time in well defined ways in chess or checkers.

But in RPGs you can do anything. How do new players (and particularly new gamemasters) possibly resolve all the rules conflicts in a game like that when their previous model is games like Clue?

D&D's thick rulesbooks are an educational tool and a crutch -- rules cover jumping, how to assign difficulty based on jump distance and conditions -- many of the other skills have fairly lengthy lists of modifiers to help adjudicate the DC. Many of the different things players will try in a fight are covered in the combat section. And the DMG even tells the DM how to determine if an encounter is too hard or too easy.

Finally, the back to the dungeon model helps young DM's immensely. Players get the benefit of being able to immerse themselves in a fictional environment and make their own choices while the structure keeps them in an area where the DM has stuff already prepared to run. I thought the B1 module with its partially fill-in-the-blanks adventure did a nice job easing my young self into the game.

I think a game like Over the Edge, while very easy to absorb the rules and create characters, is newbie unfriendly since you already need to know how to run and play roleplaying games to use it.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Ourph said:
			
		

> I think there's something inherently "Warhammer" about rolling vs. your own WS score to see if you "hit" independent of what your opponent might be doing or wearing (i.e. - there is no equivalent of Armor Class).




And it's funny, because for me (as a person very familiar with WHFB but who never played the original WHFR), this is totally un-Warhammer!   In the wargame, characters compare their weapon skills against each other to determine if they hit or not.  'Armor making you harder to hit' would be just as un-Warhammer, but a central tenant of the wargame is that, say, a high elf general has an easier time hitting a snotling for the exact same reason the snotling has a hard time hitting the elf.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> If the game is similar enough to the core d20 system outlined in the SRD that it actually retains those "networking efficiencies", then the mechanics are significantly different enough that (while you may be playing "d20 Warhammer") you're not really playing "Warhammer".  For someone who plays Warhammer as much for the system as the setting, that's just not good enough.




And for the vast majority of gamers, who never played WHFR but are at least familiar with the Warhammer brand, it's totally meaningless.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> This is the attitude that I have a real problem with.  Many d20 fans feel that Warhammer (and CoC and Traveller and Gamma World and Runequest and etc.) are nothing more than cool settings/genres with inferior rulesets tacked on.  Again, I call this d20 elitism in its most snobbish and unappealing form.  I think lots of d20 fans and publishers would like to think that every other popular game made its mark only based on its "fluff" and not on having a well designed rule system and that the world will thank them when they swoop in and "save" the game by retaining the great fluff and replacing the "inferior", "unevolved" rules with a "better" system.




In Shadowrun's case, that's sorely needed.  I'm not sure about WHFR.  

However, it doesn't change the fact that those settings, especially Warhammer and Call of Cthulu, ARE cool settings that made their mark based on their "fluff" - both being, after all, far more famous for their non-RPG products than their RPG products.  To say otherwise is no different from claiming that OGL Conan is trading on the strength of its d20-based system, not Robert E. Howard's iconic hero.

Traveler, Gamma World and Runequest all, to the best of my knowledge, originated their settings with the games and haven't been more famously used in other mediums, so that doesn't apply to them.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Excellence in game design did not suddenly begin and just as abruptly end in the year 2000.  :\




Certainly not!  Even the previous edition of SilCore was superior to d20, and I'd give the previous version of HERO about even odds (the current version being superior, IMO).  True20 is considerably better than its d20 roots, too.  

But the point about "networking inefficiencies" still holds.  I may prefer SilCore to d20, but I know of several games/worlds I'd love to see in d20 since I know they'll never be done in SilCore.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Exactly, the only thing you absolutely can't replicate about Warhammer with other mechanics is.....the Warhammer game mechanics.  Which, IMHO, are vastly superior to the core d20 system in just about every aspect.  I'm sure YM will V.




Haven't played the current version yet, never saw the old one.  But I do know I'd be hugely dissatisfied with a Warhammer-licensed game that didn't give me solid tactical wargaming and minis use, since those aspects are inextricably entwined with MY conception of Warhammer.


----------



## Ourph

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Haven't played the current version yet, never saw the old one.  But I do know I'd be hugely dissatisfied with a Warhammer-licensed game that didn't give me solid tactical wargaming and minis use, since those aspects are inextricably entwined with MY conception of Warhammer.




WHFRPv1 was OK on this score.  Chris's WHFRPv2 is miles better in this regard than both v1 and D&D AFAIAC.  In fact, I would say WHFRPv2 is an excellent example of a heavily tactical combat system that avoids the pitfalls of D&D3e combat (i.e. - it offers tons of options without being overly complex).

In fact, the only criticism I have of the entire game is that the Talents section and some of the spells fall into the d20 trap of "over modifying" everything the way Feats and buff spells do in D&D3e.



> Traveler, Gamma World and Runequest all, to the best of my knowledge, originated their settings with the games and haven't been more famously used in other mediums, so that doesn't apply to them.




IIRC, the Glorantha setting for Runequest originated in association with a boardgame (_Something_ Bear, Red Moon? Can't recall the name off the top of my head) before its advent as an RPG.  Not that that contradicts your point - just a little trivia FYI.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Ourph said:
			
		

> WHFRPv1 was OK on this score.  Chris's WHFRPv2 is miles better in this regard than both v1 and D&D AFAIAC.  In fact, I would say WHFRPv2 is an excellent example of a heavily tactical combat system that avoids the pitfalls of D&D3e combat (i.e. - it offers tons of options without being overly complex).
> 
> In fact, the only criticism I have of the entire game is that the Talents section and some of the spells fall into the d20 trap of "over modifying" everything the way Feats and buff spells do in D&D3e.




Sounds great.

I've wanted to take a look at WHFR2 for quite a while, since I'm a big fan of the setting and I love its monster book.  Now I'd very much like to.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> I think it's likely a mistake to equate lack of mechancial complexity with newbie friendliness when it's really *conceptual* complexity that's the bugbear.



Those are very interesting points. And I think that most games out there now are really lacking in explanations that actually help someone who wants to pick up a book and learn how to play (much less run) a game without someone who's done it before around to help them figure it out. A lot of games have lip service "How to play/How to GM" that assume you know what to do.

If you look at Buffy, or Primetime Adventures, the conceptual complexity issue is very different. These are games that are set up to produce games like a series of TV episodes, and they explain to players and GM alike how to do that. Buffy has an existing framework; if you've watched the show, you know the things Heroes and White Hats do, how a session is structured, etc. In PTA, you aren't going to get "off the map" as far as task resolution, because the resolution mechanic is tied to resolving the conflict within a scene, and there are clear rules for how to handle that. Also, both games have a catch-all mechanic (Drama Points or Screen Presence) that everyone can fall back on if they're not sure how to handle a specific case.

I think that "back to the dungeon" and "like your favorite TV show" are both helpful constraints that help new players get their footing. They limit scope and keep things focused. That leads me into some thoughts about scenario creation.

I think it's interesting that traditional party-of-adventurers RPGs have two primary elements of structure: resolution mechanics, and scenario creation. Scenario creation is a large part of "how we play", and it's not an easy skill to learn in traditional RPGs. You have to weigh challenge fairness vs. vermillisitude vs. pacing and narrative arc. If I want to make a D&D 3.5 dungeon, I need to understand CRs, adjust for the class composition of the party, make sure environmental challenges are surmountable at the party's level and with their skills, etc. Prepackaged adventures help with these problems, but they're definate issues.

In Primetime Adventures, there's no benefit at all in using a "module" except as inspiration. Players and GM talk together about the kind of series they'd like to play, make characters (which involves writing down a few traits they're skilled at, like "CIA Operative"), and go. Scenario balance and the narrative arc are tied together -- as challenges come up in a scene, the GM spends his Budget to decide how difficult they are, starting off easier and building to a high difficulty at the climax. Whatever the challenge is, it's resolved using Screen Presence + a relevant trait vs. the Budget spent. That doesn't simulate reality, but it does simulate the TV shows it's based on.

What I guess I'm trying to say is that conceptual complexity relates heavily to the mode of play. Getting your head around a D&D style model can be tough for some people -- are we trying to play our characters to "win", or to have them act like they were real people, or to have an interesting "story" happen? What if those goals conflict? We see posts about these kinds of things all the time on this forum, often from long-time players and GMs. Something like "It's going to be kind of like _Firefly_" still needs group consensus on some points, but it's easy to relate to.

Not to push PTA so hard -- it's just the book next to me when I was thinking of examples -- but I think it'd be interesting to explore different conceptual models. I think a good rules-light game can present a clear, limited conceptual model, and contain mechanics that let you resolve play within that model.


----------



## buzz

2WS-Steve said:
			
		

> I think it's likely a mistake to equate lack of mechancial complexity with newbie friendliness when it's really *conceptual* complexity that's the bugbear.



Quoted to show that Steven is a genius.


----------



## buzz

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> Getting your head around a D&D style model can be tough for some people...



IMO, the standard D&D dungeon is probably the closest experience you'll get to traditional board and strategy games in an RPG. Ergo, why I think it' such a successful entry point for people new to the hobby.


----------



## buzz

Ourph said:
			
		

> Now I will be the first to admit you could take the SRD; fold, spindle and mutilate it into something wholly different; and come up with a game that reproduces those things using a d20 rather than a d10, but at that point any "networking efficiencies " your d20 game might have are basically gone.  Any familiarity someone might have with D&D or any other SRD-based d20 game is going to do them little to no good in terms of being familiar with your "Warhammer" ruleset.



All of the things you listed as bieng inherrently Warhammer for you would not need to be done, IMO, to create a d20-based game that captured the feel and goals of WFRP. The mechanics don't need to _mimic_ the mehcanics of WFRP (e.g., percentile skills), they just need to _do the same thing_. The end result would probably be something aking to GR's Black Company RPG, and thus would retain all of the "network" advantages.

The very fact that something like expressing Strength as a percentage, as opposed to an open-ended number that hovers around 12-20 for most PCs, is "more Warhammer" to you is an example of how previous experience colors perception. To someone who has no esxperience with the game, neither option will feel "more Warhammer" than the other.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> This is the attitude that I have a real problem with.  Many d20 fans feel that Warhammer (and CoC and Traveller and Gamma World and Runequest and etc.) are nothing more than cool settings/genres with inferior rulesets tacked on.  Again, I call this d20 elitism in its most snobbish and unappealing form.



I think you're seeing elitism and snobbery where it doesn't exist. And you could easily replace "d20 fans" with "gamers", honestly. This is typical fan behavior, not typical d20 fan behavior.

My point isn't that Warhammer is a "cool setting with inferior mechanics tacked on." My point is that WFRP isn't doing anything so mehcanically unique nor its "core story" and goals so different that you couldn't port the setting to other systems (d20 or whatever) without losing any of the flavor that makes the setting appealing. The setting doesn't require rolling percentile dice. It _does_ require grittiness, lethality, a skill for drinking, lower magic than the D&D standard, and horror.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Exactly, the only thing you absolutely can't replicate about Warhammer with other mechanics is.....the Warhammer game mechanics.  Which, IMHO, are vastly superior to the core d20 system in just about every aspect.  I'm sure YM will V.



See, you as a WFRP fan would mave been mightily honked off if WFRP2 switched systems. Ergo, reason for the publisher not to switch.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

I made an overly long post about it on the last page, but I still maintain that conceptual complexity is strongly connected to mode of play. 

Traditional RPGs do have a lot of conceptual complexity, but at it's core combining "Let's pretend" with "Playing a game with rules based on what we're pretending" isn't all that complex.

I also think that a lot of that complexity deals with assimilating the unstated social contract of a gaming group. Rules-heavy games, because their systems deal with resolving actions within a fictional environment according to a large number of assumptions, are a bigger hurdle to get over than games that tell you what to do at the table.


----------



## Ourph

buzz said:
			
		

> The very fact that something like expressing Strength as a percentage, as opposed to an open-ended number that hovers around 12-20 for most PCs, is "more Warhammer" to you is an example of how previous experience colors perception. To someone who has no esxperience with the game, neither option will feel "more Warhammer" than the other.




I think it's pretty obvious that someone who's ignorant of Warhammer's strengths wouldn't miss them if they were absent in a d20 game based on the setting.  Your statement is true in the same way that someone living in the Soviet Union in the 1980's might think a Lada Signet was a great car if they'd never had any experience with a Ford Mustang.  But just because you can trick ignorant consumers into accepting something inferior, doesn't mean you should.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

buzz said:
			
		

> IMO, the standard D&D dungeon is probably the closest experience you'll get to traditional board and strategy games in an RPG. Ergo, why I think it' such a successful entry point for people new to the hobby.



True, if "the hobby" means exploring party of adventures overcomes tactical challenges posed by the GM. A dungeon is helpful because it limits in-game options. But a player still has to learn how to reconcile what they'd imagine their character doing with the tactical options within the system and with the shared expectations of the group. Stuff like, "What do I roll for, versus what do I roleplay out?" Those are things people usually have to absorb through osmosis.

If the core mechanics of your game aren't about simulating a fictional reality in detail, then an "intro scenario" might limit the number of NPCs involved instead of limiting the geography. And often these rules-light games have more rules about what players do than they do about what characters do. 

I don't believe that going into a dungeon is an easier thing to grasp for everyone than something like "We're going to play an episode of Buffy." It's easier to grasp the dungeon thing if you've already got a gamer mindset, but then aren't we talking about how to make people who already think like gamers into gamers?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Ourph said:
			
		

> I think it's pretty obvious that someone who's ignorant of Warhammer's strengths wouldn't miss them if they were absent in a d20 game based on the setting.  Your statement is true in the same way that someone living in the Soviet Union in the 1980's might think a Lada Signet was a great car if they'd never had any experience with a Ford Mustang.  But just because you can trick ignorant consumers into accepting something inferior, doesn't mean you should.




Now who's being elitist?


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> I don't believe that going into a dungeon is an easier thing to grasp for everyone than something like "We're going to play an episode of Buffy." It's easier to grasp the dungeon thing if you've already got a gamer mindset, but then aren't we talking about how to make people who already think like gamers into gamers?




It would be for me, since I don't watch television.  

However, the real question is, who are you marketing the game toward.  In most cases, RPGs try to recruit people who are already gamers, but not necessarily roleplaying gamers.

Teaching a (board) gamer to think like a (roleplaying) gamer is easier using a dungeon 'game board,' minis and defined rules to guide his choice of actions.

Teaching a (card) gamer to think like a (roleplaying) gamer is easier using a lot of predefined character options to make his PC, his 'deck,' effective or interesting.

Teaching a (video) gamer to think like a (roleplaying) gamer is easier using a strong GM-led storyline and simple but comprehensive rules for combat.

Teaching a (PC) gamer to think like a (roleplaying) gamer is probably impossible.  Munchy gits, them lot.


----------



## Turjan

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> I don't believe that going into a dungeon is an easier thing to grasp for everyone than something like "We're going to play an episode of Buffy." It's easier to grasp the dungeon thing if you've already got a gamer mindset, but then aren't we talking about how to make people who already think like gamers into gamers?



I think the dungeon is a help for the fledgling GM, because he doesn't have to deal with the trouble of guiding his troupe through the scenario; a dungeon is more or less self-guiding. This part is not true for a TV episode.


----------



## JohnSnow

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> However, the real question is, who are you marketing the game toward. In most cases, RPGs try to recruit people who are already gamers, but not necessarily roleplaying gamers.
> 
> Teaching a (board) gamer to think like a (roleplaying) gamer is easier using a dungeon 'game board,' minis and defined rules to guide his choice of actions.
> 
> Teaching a (card) gamer to think like a (roleplaying) gamer is easier using a lot of predefined character options to make his PC, his 'deck,' effective or interesting.
> 
> Teaching a (video) gamer to think like a (roleplaying) gamer is easier using a strong GM-led storyline and simple but comprehensive rules for combat.
> 
> Teaching a (PC) gamer to think like a (roleplaying) gamer is probably impossible. Munchy gits, them lot.




I think this goes to the basic point. D&D 3e is set up to appeal to the first 2 groups. It has a game board and minis to appeal to the board gamer. The game was first described using the "Candyland" analogy, and that holds up pretty well to this day. It also has a stack of options (and is constantly marketing new ones) for making a character more interesting, and so hits that Card gamer (the _Magic_ crowd). WotC rightly tried to entice their existing customers to try D&D (brand extension), and obviously it worked, at least to some degree.

A strong GM-led storyline requires a strong GM. That's not something a game company can package and sell at the moment, so it's a bad case on which to build a business. If you can figure out a way to profitably teach people to be GMs, you'd start to gather in this group. Probably you have to get them through network effects from the 2 groups you can market to.

As for the fourth group, I too think you're outta luck trying to convert them to RPGs. They don't like to leave the house or talk to people face-to-face, after all.


----------



## Ourph

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Now who's being elitist?




I'm not being elitist, I'm being provocative.    

Besides, I don't want all games to use the Warhammer mechanics.  Just one.  I don't assume that just because I believe the Warhammer mechanics are inherently better that everyone else will agree (or that if they don't agree they are simply fooling themselves out of nostalgia or a disinclination to accept change).  OTOH - the d20 elitists seem to think that because d20 can "do" system X that d20 should "do" system X (as if system X could never have any inherent value of its own).  

Snobbery I say, snobbery and condescension!


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Ourph said:
			
		

> Snobbery I say, snobbery and condescension!




Shenanigans!


----------



## SweeneyTodd

The argument at the core of the thread is that rules-light systems aren't quicker or easier to use than rules-heavy systems. All I'm trying to say is I grant that's true, _if you use them both the same way._
If your group plays a certain way, adopting a system that has different priorities is going to be unsatisfying. I don't dispute that.

But there are a lot of ways to play. I have a player who tried D&D once and hated it. Hated it. She wasn't interested in combat, didn't grok how to do things with simmy task resolution mechanics, didn't even get why you'd want to have a group of adventurers go through a dungeon.

She figured, "Oh, no rules at all is better," and tried freeform forum-based roleplaying. She wasn't happy there either, because the rules of "what you could do" were solely based on seniority and unstated assumptions. She was creatively blocked there as well.

I talked her into playing with our group, and something "clicked". The character sheet was a clear statement of player goals and interests, expressed through the character. There were clear rules for scene framing and conflict proposal. Disputes on "what happens next" were resolved by setting stakes for the conflict, choosing the relevant traits on the character sheet, rolling against the opposing side, and narrating the results. 

And the thing is, by the second session she was doing a lot of things that we consider GM skills: Framing scenes, proposing conflicts, introducing NPCs, and more. Wait, I thought I was supposed to put her through a dungeon first, and let her slowly learn the ropes? 

I still maintain that, if you divorce it from things like game balance and world building, coming up with an interesting story is something that almost anybody can do. It's only when you make the additional caveats that story must be expressed through interactions with a detailed environment, and that that environmental challenges must be checked for game balance, that you make injecting creative content into the game so daunting.


----------



## JohnSnow

Ourph said:
			
		

> OTOH - the d20 elitists seem to think that because d20 can "do" system X that d20 should "do" system X (as if system X could never have any inherent value of its own).




I think in most cases you're mistaking "observation" with opinion. People who do marketing have to look at the systems and what *most* people actually play. To say that more people play d20 than any other system is not exactly a matter for debate. If you asked marketing people why, most of them would have to conclude, as Ryan did, that it was because most of the people playing decided it was "better." That doesn't necessarily mean there isn't room for other systems. I suppose you could draw the computer OS analogy here, with d20 being Windows and Warhammer being the Mac OS. Personally, I think that analogy's false, as I think the Mac OS is superior, but don't feel the same way about _Warhammer_.

I played _Warhammer_ with my group for the first time a few weeks ago. It was okay, but learning the system was a barrier for me. In fact, I was able to make a character without having the slightest idea how the system would work in play. We played a simplified version because we didn't know it. And for me, I don't see what the system added to my gaming experience. As an aside, our group has sorta decided that we only need one dark fantasy game - and we really like _Midnight_ (two of us were eager to DM it), so we'll be shelving _Warhammer_ except for sub-in games.

And that's the point. We're making the decision to play _Warhammer_ based on its setting, not its system. I'd say the same thing is true for all but the most diehard of the old WFRP fans.


----------



## buzz

Ourph said:
			
		

> But just because you can trick ignorant consumers into accepting something inferior, doesn't mean you should.



This assumes that the d20 (or GURPS, or StoryTeller, or etc.) implementation would be "inferior", which I guess steers us into discussion best saved for a different thread, ideally on a different Website.


----------



## buzz

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> I don't believe that going into a dungeon is an easier thing to grasp for everyone than something like "We're going to play an episode of Buffy." It's easier to grasp the dungeon thing if you've already got a gamer mindset, but then aren't we talking about how to make people who already think like gamers into gamers?



The dungeon scenario is, as its core, being a piece on a contained board moving from location to location, dealing with the rules that apply to where you "land", and working towards goals similar in many ways to victory conditions. This is part of the reason why it's so easy to turn the dungeon experience into a video, board, or card game, and thus why I think it's a good starting point for people who have no experience with RPGs. It's inherrently gamist.

_Buffy_ is narrativist, and thus, IMO, a little more obtuse for someone who's never roleplayed before; i.e., Drama Points are a bigger conceptual hurdle than, "land on the room with the statue and fight the ogre". Granted, Buffy has an advantage in that you have seven seasons worth of episodes to point players to as a reference ("Now, you get to decide what Buffy does instead").


----------



## buzz

Turjan said:
			
		

> I think the dungeon is a help for the fledgling GM, because he doesn't have to deal with the trouble of guiding his troupe through the scenario; a dungeon is more or less self-guiding. This part is not true for a TV episode.



Very good point, and what RyanD was alluding to above.


----------



## buzz

Ourph said:
			
		

> the d20 elitists



What? Where?


----------



## SweeneyTodd

buzz said:
			
		

> _Buffy_ is narrativist, and thus, IMO, a little more obtuse for someone who's never roleplayed before; i.e., Drama Points are a bigger conceptual hurdle than, "land on the room with the statue and fight the ogre". Granted, Buffy has an advantage in that you have seven seasons worth of episodes to point players to as a reference ("Now, you get to decide what Buffy does instead").



We're just talking about our opinions, so I won't try to dissuade you. 

I talked to my fiancee about Drama Points, and she went, "Well, yeah, obviously characters should succeed when it's dramatically appropriate." Before she started playing in our group, she'd never touched a roleplaying game. She keeps telling me five pages of rules is too crunchy, and we should try to get it down to one. But she has no problem at all coming up with interesting things that could happen and possible outcomes. 

Talk to a woman. Ask her how her day went. I promise you if she had a bad day, you'll see that she doesn't need to learn narrative structure, focus on conflict, or characterization. She already has those tools 

(If anything, the guys I had to keep working on till they "got it" were the D&Ders. They were the ones who were weirded out by scene-level resolution or an explicit session structure. The newbies went, "Oh, so if I want my character's troubled family life to be important, I should spend more points on it? That makes sense." The vets probably spent more time unlearning stuff than the newbies did learning.)

I'm just trying to say that if you think imagining people dealing with conflicts with other people in an everyday environment is less intuitive than dungeon crawling, you're coming at it from a very specific mindset. People who've never gamed before in their life can tell you an interesting/funny/sad story about when somebody they knew ran into trouble and had to deal with it.


----------



## Ourph

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> And that's the point. We're making the decision to play _Warhammer_ based on its setting, not its system. I'd say the same thing is true for all but the most diehard of the old WFRP fans.




The collective sigh of relief in the WFRP fan community when it was announced that WFRPv2 would NOT be d20 would lead me to believe otherwise.  The attitude that most Warhammer fans were fans simply because of the setting, not the system, is the elitism I'm talking about.  I've had tons of discussions with people about Warhammer with other Warhammer fans and while the setting is always part of the appeal, the combat, skill and career systems are also major parts of what people talk about enjoying about Warhammer.  I can certainly understand that not everyone feels that way, but to assume that the majority of people could care less about the system is, IMO and IME a stretch.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Ourph said:
			
		

> The collective sigh of relief in the WFRP fan community when it was announced that WFRPv2 would NOT be d20 would lead me to believe otherwise.  The attitude that most Warhammer fans were fans simply because of the setting, not the system, is the elitism I'm talking about.  I've had tons of discussions with people about Warhammer with other Warhammer fans and while the setting is always part of the appeal, the combat, skill and career systems are also major parts of what people talk about enjoying about Warhammer.  I can certainly understand that not everyone feels that way, but to assume that the majority of people could care less about the system is, IMO and IME a stretch.




Here's the problem you have with what I, at least, am saying, and what I think JohnSnow is saying, too.  (I mean, the problem you have _aside_ from throwing around terms like "d20 elitist" in reference to at least one person who prefers HERO and SilCore to d20 and True20 to regular d20 and all of them to actual D&D).

First, when you say "Warhammer fans," you mean fans of the relatively niche Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.  I mean fans of the wildly successful, industry-leading, multiple-electronic-game-spawning, stores-across-multiple-continents Warhammer Fantasy _Battle_.  Some of whom may have played WHFR, but, if sales are any indication, many of whom did not.

If you asked me to sit down and design a Warhammer roleplaying game, I'd start with the battle and skirmish games and extrapolate the system from them.  Obviously, character development and non-combat resolution systems would have to be put together, and having 1 Wound might be a bit lethal even for Warhammer  , but that would be the baseline from which I worked.  It would be a d6 system with stats in the 1-10 range if it seemed at all possible.  In fact, if I could swing it, I'd make the whole thing compatible with the battle/skirmish rules.  D&D grew from Chainmail; WHFR should, in my opinion, grow from WHFB.

From the sounds of it, neither d20 nor WHFR would suit my conception of a Warhammer Roleplaying Game based on system, which means that either would have to do so purely based on how well the system modelled the setting - independent of any system-based expectations I might have.


----------



## buzz

Ourph said:
			
		

> I can certainly understand that not everyone feels that way, but to assume that the majority of people could care less about the system is, IMO and IME a stretch.



I was not making the assumption that people could care less about the system. On the contrary.

I was basing my comments on anecdotal evidence from RPG fora that, while some people loved the WFRP1 system and some did not, one thign everyone could agree upon was that the setting rocked, and adventures like _The Enemy Within_ were some of the best RPG adventuers any system had ever seen. Ergo, my observation that what really matters more than anything bout WFRP is the _feel_. I.e., turning the WFRP setting into FR (cinematic and high-magic) or Blue Rose's Aldea (horror-free, egalitarian and romantic) would take away everything that makes the Warhammer world what it is. Changing the die used to resolve actions would not.

Given that I don't think ay one of a single d20, two d10s, or a pool of d6s really screams "gritty" or "cinematic" any more than the other, I don't see that the "feel" of the Warhammer world needs to be married to any one in particular.

However, I can perfectly understand how a fanbase that's associated specific types of mechanics with roleplaying in the Warhammer world for about 20 years might associate those mechanics with the "feel" of it. I can also see why a publisher would want to build off this familiarity when marketing to said fanbase, and thus keep a revision as similar as possible.

This is not a qualitative statement about these mechanics; it's a marketing statement.


----------



## Akrasia

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> ...  To say that more people play d20 than any other system is not exactly a matter for debate. If you asked marketing people why, most of them would have to conclude, as Ryan did, that it was because most of the people playing decided it was "better." That doesn't necessarily mean there isn't room for other systems....




The fact that WotC products are far more available than other RPG products, and the name recognition that goes with "Dungeons and Dragons", were probably significant factors in determining d20's current position in the RPG market.  (Not the only factors, to be sure, but I think it's rather simplistic to assume that d20's popularity is simply because people judged it to be 'better'.)  I wouldn't be surprised if a huge number of people playing D&D are unaware of the existence of other RPGs.  (The economic model of perfect competition with fully informed consumers is worlds away from the actual RPG market.)



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> ...
> I suppose you could draw the computer OS analogy here, with d20 being Windows and Warhammer being the Mac OS. Personally, I think that analogy's false, as I think the Mac OS is superior, but don't feel the same way about _Warhammer_...




I actually like that analogy, since I think WFRP is *much* better than 3e in capturing a 'grim and gritty' dark fantasy 'feel'.  I also think WFRP does a very good job in combining lots of options for PCs, with relatively streamlined mechanics.  (Of course, the fact that the mechanics are tied to a specific world helps enormously in accomplishing this -- an option not available to D&D.)



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> ...
> I played _Warhammer_ with my group for the first time a few weeks ago. It was okay, but learning the system was a barrier for me. In fact, I was able to make a character without having the slightest idea how the system would work in play. We played a simplified version because we didn't know it. And for me, I don't see what the system added to my gaming experience. As an aside, our group has sorta decided that we only need one dark fantasy game - and we really like _Midnight_ (two of us were eager to DM it), so we'll be shelving _Warhammer_ except for sub-in games...




I played in that session as well, and my experience was the opposite (though, because it was a 'test session', it is important not to be too quick in making conclusive judgements about the game).

I thought that the mechanics were great: they were simple, intuitive, and seemed to do a good job in combining options with simplicity.

Playing in that WFRP session made me want to keep playing that game -- and the fact that the *system* did such a great job in supporting the *setting* is what led me to that view.  In contrast to John, the system definitey added to *my* gaming experience.  

Finally, as an aside, the fact that new players can generate WFRP characters with minimal understanding of the overall rules is a huge boon for the game.

It is a pity, John, that you're 'shelving' the WFRP game (I thought Steve wanted to keep going with it).  If I were still over there, I would have voted differently.  Oh well, Midnight look okay too...



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> ...
> And that's the point. We're making the decision to play _Warhammer_ based on its setting, not its system. I'd say the same thing is true for all but the most diehard of the old WFRP fans.




Both the system and setting work for me.  (Geez ... I'm starting to sound like a WFRP fanboy now ...  )


----------



## Ourph

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Here's the problem you have with what I, at least, am saying, and what I think JohnSnow is saying, too. (I mean, the problem you have aside from throwing around terms like "d20 elitist" in reference to at least one person who prefers HERO and SilCore to d20 and True20 to regular d20 and all of them to actual D&D).




I'm not really intending to call any one person a "d20 elitist".  It's more of a label for an attitude I perceive in a lot of people to varying degrees, where the baseline assumption is that once the OGL was published any game designer or game fan who stuck with their own system must be doing so for some less than legitimate reason like "nostalgia" or "rebel counterculture mentality" rather than the perfectly legitimate reason that d20 isn't the only good RPG system in existence and not every game would actually benefit from being converted to a different set of rules.



> First, when you say "Warhammer fans," you mean fans of the relatively niche Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.




"Relatively niche" compared to what?  Compared to WHFB....yeah, I'll give you that one, but then again RPGs have always been a "niche" compared to miniature wargaming.  Compared to D&D3e?  This year is the first time WHFRP has been in print since D&D3e came into being.  In the days of GW WHFRP, it was much more than a niche game in the US and rivaled (in some countries even outdistanced) D&D in Europe.  I guess my point would be, of the people who are familiar with Warhammer as an RPG, the vast majority care about more than just the setting material to at least some extent (and not just because it's what is "familiar" but because the system is actually a well designed game).



			
				Buzz said:
			
		

> I was not making the assumption that people could care less about the system. On the contrary.




Yeah, I know.  I was responding to John's post, not yours.



> I was basing my comments on anecdotal evidence from RPG fora that, while some people loved the WFRP1 system and some did not, one thign everyone could agree upon was that the setting rocked, and adventures like The Enemy Within were some of the best RPG adventuers any system had ever seen.




I guess I'm not included in the definition of "everyone" then; since I've always felt TEW campaign, while it made good reading, was a railroady, description-heavy nightmare in actual play.



> Given that I don't think ay one of a single d20, two d10s, or a pool of d6s really screams "gritty" or "cinematic" any more than the other, I don't see that the "feel" of the Warhammer world needs to be married to any one in particular.




I agree.  If all you're after is the "feel" of Warhammer you can get it with most of the fantasy RPG systems out there.  If what you're after is the actual mechanics, you can only get that with WHFRP.  You seem to be under the impression that the "feel" is the only thing WHFRP fans like about the game - which IME is dead wrong.  You also seem to be under the impression that the only possible reason someone might retain the WH game mechanics rather than converting to d20 is a marketing one - which IMO is also dead wrong.  Another, and I think equally compelling, reason would be that the WFRPv1 system was good game design and scrapping it completely for something different wasn't necessary.


----------



## JohnSnow

Ourph said:
			
		

> This year is the first time WHFRP has been in print since D&D3e came into being. In the days of GW WHFRP, it was much more than a niche game in the US and rivaled (in some countries even outdistanced) D&D in Europe. I guess my point would be, of the people who are familiar with Warhammer as an RPG, the vast majority care about more than just the setting material to at least some extent (and not just because it's what is "familiar" but because the system is actually a well designed game).




Absolutely correct. But was the game's success in Europe due to superior mechanics, first mover advantage, or Games Workshop's strengths? I, for one, haven't a clue. In the US, it was a niche game, when compared to D&D. I think it's safe to say that more people have played D&D than have played WHFRP. So, if you accept that, there's a wider potential market that already knows how to play D&D than knows how to play WHFRP. And, details & additions aside, the d20 System is mechanically similar to old D&D.

I'm not saying that people who played WHFRP are inferior or that their game is inferior. What I am saying is that people who played WHFRP are outnumbered by those who've played D&D. Not everyone who has played D&D played WHFRP (I never did), but I imagine most, if not all, of those who played WHFRP had some D&D experience.

The ones who preferred WHFRP to D&D would be turned off by ditching the old mechanics. The ones who didn't care would not. Those who never played Warhammer certainly don't care about retaining the old mechanics. If the latter two groups is larger in size than the first, then _to the extent that they have some experience with D&D or the d20 System,_ then the potential market would have been larger for a d20 version of WHFRP than it was for the revised version of the classic game.

*MoogleEmpMog* is probably correct that something closer to _Warhammer Fantasy Battle_ would have an even larger target market from which to draw its sales (and potentially greater network effects). Note that I'm talking about market size, not what's needed to cater to a fan base. I am also not rendering any judgements on that fan base's opinion about the game, just arguing that a new system (and the WHFRP system is new to many people) is a barrier to entry for people interested in the product.

Now maybe you believe most of your sales are going to be to the people who preferred WHFRP to D&D, in which case retaining those customers is your goal. But that means that you've abandoned a significant fraction of your potential market, and instead chosen to serve a particular niche.

Niches can still be quite large. They are defined in business as being a smaller, more targeted piece of a larger market.


----------



## JohnSnow

As an aside, I'd suggest that if GW really feels that the mechanics of the WHFRP are unique and marketable, they should license those mechanics and let the market decide which system is superior.

But I doubt that'll happen.


----------



## The Shaman

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> If GW really feels that Warhammer's mechanics are unique and marketable, I'd suggest they OGL those mechanics and *let the market decide which system is superior.*



Is this really how we decide if something is 'better' than something else? By holding what amounts to a commercial popularity contest?

Is McDonalds the 'best' food because of its sales figures? Is Wal-Mart the 'best' store because of its market dominance?

Did all of those game companies who took advantage of the OGL do so because d20 is such a 'superior system', or because they could make a buck by piggy-backing on the name of _Dungeons and Dragons_ and Hasbro/WotC's marketing machine?

This is the whole part of the Mearls/Dancey argument that I find repugnant: that the most objective measure of product's quality is its market share.

I have a Feathered Friends down sleeping bag, one of the finest bags of its kind produced in the world - however, Feathered Friends' sales wouldn't be a blip on the radar of Kelty. Does this mean that Kelty makes a superior product? Not on any day ending in the letter 'Y', it doesn't.


----------



## JohnSnow

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Is this really how we decide if something is 'better' than something else? By holding what amounts to a commercial popularity contest?
> 
> This is the whole part of the Mearls/Dancey argument that I find repugnant: that the most objective measure of product's quality is its market share.




Well, in a market economy - yes. It is, in fact, the only objective standard we have. Alternatively, we could appoint some blue-ribbon panel of "gaming experts" to determine what kind of game we should all play. Of course, they might pick a game the majority of people didn't like. Since the success of a game comes down to "do people like it," the only non-elitist approach is to make several different games and let people decide for themseves what they want to play (and therefore buy). If more people want to play something, it's safe to say that _as far as the majority is concerned_, that game is "better."

Obviously, there is room for niche products, but those are going to be much smaller portions of the larger market. Which is all Ryan and Mike said to begin with!

If you could somehow charge more for a higher-quality game, you'd have what's called "market segmentation" which is precisely what happens in the case of restaurants (and sleeping bags).


----------



## The Shaman

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Obviously, there is room for niche products, but those are going to be much smaller portions of the larger market. Which is all Ryan and Mike said to begin with!



No, what they said is that d20 is a better system because it sells better - that's a akin to saying that Big Macs are better than prime rib because there are more Big Macs sold in a day than there are prime rib dinners.

The only thing that sales can reliably tell you is what sells better - whether that can be attributed to the quality of the product, the number of venues in which it sells, the marketing and advertising budget, or any of a number of other factos it doesn't say. This is as hollow an argument as they come.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Wal-Mart _is_ the "best" store in terms of consistently providing low prices.  That appears to be the #1 issue for most consumers.  In my experience, it also usually has solid customer service, clean stores and a broad if not deep selection.

In almost every measure that isn't entirely subjective, Wal-Mart probably _is_ the "best store."  Which isn't to say I like it - I prefer a deep, narrow selection.

As for McDonald's, it's primary appeal is not that most people like it the best, it's that very few people really _dis_like it.  Thus, it's often the choice for mixed groups whose tastes in more specific foods vary.  It's also relatively cheap.

I would assume that Mongoose, who have made non-d20-based games and who use neither the d20 logo nor any reference to Dungeons & Dragons, made OGL Conan a d20-based game because they liked the mechanics.  I would assume that Green Ronin developed Mutants & Masterminds and later Blue Rose and True20 from d20 for the same reason.  d20 seems as good a system as any for Warcraft or DragonMech or the Iron Kingdoms.  Did some companies jump on the bandwagon to try to take advantage of D&D?  Sure.  Do the ones who are still around and making d20 products use the system for that reason (considering that that reason failed to actually, y'know, WORK)?  I doubt it.

I fail to see what makes Mearls' and Dancey's argument "repugnant," even if it may, in fact, be wrong.  For that matter, I'm not entirely sure where they made this argument.  Dancey's initial piece discussed the difference in "handling time" between Rules-Lite and Rules-Heavy, as shown by his study.  Mearls posted that to his blog and has discussed game design theory.

What keeps Feathered Friends sleeping bags from competing with Kelty's?  I assume the former suffer from either a) limited market exposure, b) high price or c) limited supply.  Also, some people (perhaps many?) are allergic to down, which limits the market somewhat.


----------



## RyanD

Akrasia said:
			
		

> The fact that WotC products are far more available than other RPG products, and the name recognition that goes with "Dungeons and Dragons", were probably significant factors in determining d20's current position in the RPG market




In 1999, sales of the core books for D&D had dropped to around 25,000 units, or roughly 10% of their historical high points (to that time), and had been declining precipitously for nearly five years.

Furthermore, at the beginning of this period of RPG decline ('94-'99), book stores had not begun their contraction (from 5-6000 stores mostly in malls, to 2-3000 stores mostly big box), comics had not experienced their biggest dieback (from an estimated 15,000 stores to 5,000 stores, a significant percentage of which stocked RPGs).  And the economy as a whole during this period was more robust than it had been in a generation, with customers in the core target demographic experiencing a five or ten fold increase in available disposable income.

Note that this decline took place in a market where RPG sales were a larger "slice" of the gaming industry than it is now, large enough to be material to the ability of retailers to surive in the business, so be strict economic rationalism, this slide should have been perceived as extremely dangerous to everyone involved in the industry, and an assumption could be made that people on all levels of the system were working hard to reverse the trend.

During this time, the D&D publisher (TSR) produced an immense amount of product, aimed at all segements of the audience, including innovative new player acquisition products, new core rules material, numerous campaign settings, and large amount of "varient" gaming materials to stretch the envelope of what "D&D" meant.

If "more available" and "name recognition" were the factors that drove RPG sales, then D&D would show a continuous upward sales trend.  It did (and does) not exhibit that trend.

If the hobby gaming industry (that is, people who play complex tabletop games for fun) showed sales cycles where all games declined and all games rose as a group, then you could plot RPGs on that cycle and attempt to say that changes in the overall sales of D&D are cyclic.  It does not.  In fact, during the time the RPG segment collapsed (from a height of approximately $50 million in annual publisher revenues to less than $10 million), one new and one old segment of the US hobby game market exploded (CCGs from $0 to $50 million, and tabletop miniatures from $10 million to $30 million).

(In fact, had CCGs and Warhammer not exploded, hobby gaming would be a dead industry right now - the retailers and the distributors could not have survived on RPGs and wargame sales.)

So the  view that D&D will and did succeed due to factors beyond the control of its publisher is clearly just unsupportable.


----------



## Akrasia

RyanD said:
			
		

> ... So the  view that D&D will and did succeed due to factors beyond the control of its publisher is clearly just unsupportable.




I never claimed that, and refer you back to what I originally said (including an important caveat that you conveniently left out):



			
				Akrasia said:
			
		

> The fact that WotC products are far more available than other RPG products, and the name recognition that goes with "Dungeons and Dragons", were probably significant factors in determining d20's current position in the RPG market.  *(Not the only factors, to be sure, but I think it's rather simplistic to assume that d20's popularity is simply because people judged it to be 'better'.) *




Please note that "significant factors" does *not* mean "exclusive factors" or even "primary factors".


----------



## Ourph

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I'm not saying that people who played WHFRP are inferior or that their game is inferior. What I am saying is that people who played WHFRP are outnumbered by those who've played D&D. Not everyone who has played D&D played WHFRP (I never did), but I imagine most, if not all, of those who played WHFRP had some D&D experience.




Is it just that people who play D&D/d20 can't stomach a publisher choosing to target an audience that might not include them?  Is that it?  Catering to the majority is NOT the only way to make money in the RPG business, especially if you're producing a great product that easily stands on its own merits.



> Well, in a market economy - yes. It is, in fact, the only objective standard we have.




Marketshare reflects marketshare, not quality.  Quality may be a factor, but there's no way to extrapolate it from marketshare because it's lumped in with too many other factors.



> Since the success of a game comes down to "do people like it," the only non-elitist approach is to make several different games and let people decide for themseves what they want to play (and therefore buy).




But how can that happen if the default assumption is that every new or revised game should use the same system.  If there are no competing systems, there isn't any opportunity for people to make a choice based on system (as opposed to fluff, core story, whatever).  

I must have missed it when they handed down the verdict that declared d20 the epitome of game design and that no further competition in the arena of better rules was necessary or allowed.


----------



## Akrasia

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> ...
> Now maybe you believe most of your sales are going to be to the people who preferred WHFRP to D&D, in which case retaining those customers is your goal. But that means that you've abandoned a significant fraction of your potential market, and instead chosen to serve a particular niche.
> 
> Niches can still be quite large. They are defined in business as being a smaller, more targeted piece of a larger market.




I really think that you are ignoring the fact that WFRP is trying to appeal to people *unfamiliar* with WFRP.  The long-time WFRP fans can be taken for granted, to some extent (the new edition is 'close enough' to the old edition that it doesn't have to worry about alienating them).  But my impression is that BI/GR is trying very hard to attract *new* players to WFRP.

The d20 market is already saturated -- hence the big 'die off' of d20 publishers over the past two years.  By selling itself as the 'non-d20 FRPG', WFRP might appeal to a segment of the market that is just looking for something different (in addition to old WFRP players, players familiar with WFB, etc.)


----------



## romp

RyanD said:
			
		

> If the hobby gaming industry (that is, people who play complex tabletop games for fun) showed sales cycles where all games declined and all games rose as a group, then you could plot RPGs on that cycle and attempt to say that changes in the overall sales of D&D are cyclic.  It does not.  In fact, during the time the RPG segment collapsed (from a height of approximately $50 million in annual publisher revenues to less than $10 million), one new and one old segment of the US hobby game market exploded (CCGs from $0 to $50 million, and tabletop miniatures from $10 million to $30 million).
> 
> (In fact, had CCGs and Warhammer not exploded, hobby gaming would be a dead industry right now - the retailers and the distributors could not have survived on RPGs and wargame sales.)
> 
> So the  view that D&D will and did succeed due to factors beyond the control of its publisher is clearly just unsupportable.




See, it is this type of astute observation that make Ryan the one person in the hobby that I would most like to have lunch with. I love talking about the business aspect of the hobby and although I disagree with him on a few topics, but when he brings up something and backs it up that I appreciate his candor, which is lacking in the "industry". D&D brand recognition had somewhat died in the 90's and 3ed./d20 brought it back along witha lift from WH/WH40K and CCGs. It certainly help a lot of gamestores that would have gone under without the steady sales from minis and CCGs. How much is also true of the CMG craze lately. Are they helping to keep a lot of the hobby stores afloat and thereby carrying RPGs on their back(s)?


----------



## The Shaman

RyanD said:
			
		

> So the  view that D&D will and did succeed due to factors beyond the control of its publisher is clearly just unsupportable.



Have you accounted for the possible effects of market saturation as part of the business slow-down? Or the changing demographics of the core audience for RPGs?

Mr. Dancey, this is all sounding like so much pseudo-science to me - more and more it looks like you have a conclusion you want to reach and you selectively pull data (some of which you even admit is coarse at best) which supports it, a conclusion that I find is based on the ultimately specious premise that higher sales and market penetration are directly related to the quality of the product.


----------



## JohnSnow

The Shaman said:
			
		

> No, what they said is that d20 is a better system because it sells better - that's a akin to saying that Big Macs are better than prime rib because there are more Big Macs sold in a day than there are prime rib dinners.
> 
> The only thing that sales can reliably tell you is what sells better - whether that can be attributed to the quality of the product, the number of venues in which it sells, the marketing and advertising budget, or any of a number of other factos it doesn't say. This is as hollow an argument as they come.




No it's not. It's just one that product elitists don't like to hear. All other things being equal (price, availability, and so forth), superior products win out. Marketing can help one product, of comparably equal quality, outsell another with less marketing. However, marketing can't sell garbage or make people buy things they don't want. It just doesn't work - the public isn't that stupid. Well, some of them are, but not most.

What you're saying reminds me of all the film critics railing that "Hollywood blockbusters are terrible movies" and then being astounded when they actually do well at the box office. The general public doesn't care about your subjective quality standard. They care about theirs. And for lots of people, an elitist's idea of "terrible" is "good enough" or, more accurately "what they want."

I grant D&D benefits from having less expensive books (economies of scale) and superior access to the supply chain and marketplace. On the other hand, it got its vaunted position somehow, and TSR wasn't exactly a moneybags company with lots of cash to devote to marketing. It was YEARS before you could buy D&D books at general bookstores. Obviously, with as many books as it has, D&D's not exactly trying to compete on price.

The Big Mac/Prime Rib analogy is false because there's a price differentiator in addition to one of taste. I, personally, don't happen to like Big Macs, so I don't buy them - matter of taste. Assuming Big Macs and Prime Rib were equally priced, I'd expect Prime Rib to outsell Big Macs, but maybe people actually prefer hamburgers to slabs of beef. RPGs have no such price differentiator, and even if they do, it favors single book games - not D&D. So yes, given comparable price, or a pricing structure that skews towards its competition, one must conclude that either D&D is considered "better" than its competition by the majority of its target market or that it has superior access to said market.

Generally speaking, high-quality products with broad appeal eventually increase their sales. If they don't, they're either being mismanaged, or they're actually niche products. There can be perfectly viable niche products, but that doesn't mean they serve the needs of the majority of the market.

All subjective content has to be judged this way. It's the only objective standard available. Insider Awards are about labelling "best" from a quality point of view by combining lots of people's subjective standards about "quality" and trying to come up with a consensus. For artistic efforts, this is commendable.


----------



## RyanD

The Shaman said:
			
		

> No, what they said is that d20 is a better system because it sells better




To be clear:  This is not my argument.

My argument (and this applies to all hobby games) is that games that are played more often than other games in the same category are inherently more valuable to the players than games that are played less, by fewer people.  This value is often an indicator (sometimes the only indicator) of relative "quality" (a term I hate to use in gaming because it is essentially useless barring a reasonably widespread definition.  But I'll use it in this post because most of those people who read it will interpret my use of the word in the way I intend it to be understood).

There are no "poor quality" games that have large player networks.  They just don't exist.  You can't induce people to keep playing a "bad game" when "good game" options are available.  (In fact, if you read my recent posts here and on Mearls' blog, you'll see that I'm advocating from the position that D&D (and D20) have a lot of room for improvement - I'm not at all suggesting they're perfected products).

The hobby gaming industry does not reward "poor games" with continuous, long term sales.  It does, however, ruthlessly weed out "poor games".  Such product lines do not generate sales over any significant amount of time, regardless of external factors like brand, availability, clever marketing, etc.

Nobody can give me an example of a "bad quality" game that suceeded over time (let us say a minimum of 12 months) because it was backed by great marketing or a fantastically popular license.

Some might make the argument that I'm arguing the point in reverse:  If I define a "good game" as one with long term sales & a large player network, then regardless of the intrinsic quality of a game, it will fit my defintion of "good".  My response to that criticism is that there are observable, neutral tests that can be applied to a game to determine its fitness (or lack thereof), reasonable, common sense things that most game designers and industry professionals (and many players) intuitively grasp, which can be used to separate games into broad categories of "good" and "bad", regardless of the specific individual's definitions of those words.  And there are no games that would be identified as "bad" that demonstrate long term success vs. "good" competition.  None.

That's what makes hobby gaming different from fashion, food, and pop culture, and why using arguments about the relationship between financial success and quality in those markets is an unfair, and misleading argument when discussing that relationship in the hobby gaming market.

In order to generate long term sales (what I call "evergreen" sales), a game must attract and keep a sizable network of active players.  Those networks form because the people in them are willing to invest time, money, and attention to an entertainment pursuit.  With so many competing ways to spend that time, money and attention, only "great games" are able to survive and thrive over the long term.

Thus, "sales" are not an *DETERMINATOR* of "quality".  Sales are, over an extended period of time, an *INDICATOR* of quality - they represent a series of decisions made independently by a large number of people that the game is worth investment of limited resources - that it is, in fact, "better" _in the opinion of the players, with both intrinsic and external factors fully valued_ than its competition.

The issue of not using D20 (or any other game system) is not necessarily an issue of instrinsic "quality".  Sure, the Warhammer RPG (or any other RPG) may be mechanically sound, interesting, and fun to play.  However, if the "cost" to potential players to engage with that game is high enough (compared to the option to learn and play a game similar to one they already know), then the actual value to those players - regardless of intrinsic features of the new game - may be less than the "similar game" option - and thus that game will not generate as many sales or as large a long term player network *as it might otherwise have done*.

The question each publisher has to ask themselves when they create an RPG in the post-OGL/D20 world is this:  Is my game *so much better* than an OGL/D20 option that I want to *force* my customers & players to pay a *tax* to play that game, and will those people perceive the value I'm offering and voluntarily submit to that taxation?

My opinion is that for most games, that answer is usually "no".  Which is not the same thing as saying "Ryan says no other games should be published" or "Ryan thinks D20 is the only viable game" or even "Ryan thinks all RPGs should be D20".  It would be fair to say that my opinion is that "RPGs that feature parties of characters who band together and seek challenges and be rewarded with increased power, sold through the traditional hobby gaming market, and designed to be played by hobby gaming players, will sell better and be more popular if they are OGL/D20 games than if they are not."


----------



## JohnSnow

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I really think that you are ignoring the fact that WFRP is trying to appeal to people *unfamiliar* with WFRP. The long-time WFRP fans can be taken for granted, to some extent (the new edition is 'close enough' to the old edition that it doesn't have to worry about alienating them). But my impression is that BI/GR is trying very hard to attract *new* players to WFRP.
> 
> The d20 market is already saturated -- hence the big 'die off' of d20 publishers over the past two years. By selling itself as the 'non-d20 FRPG', WFRP might appeal to a segment of the market that is just looking for something different (in addition to old WFRP players, players familiar with WFB, etc.)




But what you're talking about here is a niche. BI/GR is trying to attract "existing RPG players interested in a non-d20 product set in the Warhammer universe." That's a smaller market than "anyone who's ever played a d20 RPG" or even "anyone who plays Warhammer and has played a d20 RPG." Both games (revised classic WHFRP and d20 WHFRP) would appeal equally to the "anyone who's ever played Warhammer" & "general public" categories.

All I'm saying is that their market strategy is targeting a niche (non-d20 gamers), whatever their hopes are.


----------



## Turjan

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Well, in a market economy - yes. It is, in fact, the only objective standard we have. Alternatively, we could appoint some blue-ribbon panel of "gaming experts" to determine what kind of game we should all play. Of course, they might pick a game the majority of people didn't like. Since the success of a game comes down to "do people like it," the only non-elitist approach is to make several different games and let people decide for themseves what they want to play (and therefore buy). If more people want to play something, it's safe to say that _as far as the majority is concerned_, that game is "better."



This is not the whole of economics. You should factor the influence of monopols and critical mass into your equation. The current increase of the D&D market share is mostly driven by that influence, I'd guess. Niche games hardly have a chance with the switch of RPG distribution from LGS to large book and other retail chains (BN, Borders, amazon, even Walmart). They hardly ever make it there. This means that potential buyers will never hear of these games and, therefore, never have the ability to try them out. This also means that a quality difference between these games and D&D does not matter in the slightest! The sole factor for D&D's sales figures is the quality of D&D itself, which influences whether people buy D&D or don't buy D&D. Such a market is completely blind to alternatives.


----------



## Ourph

RyanD said:
			
		

> The question each publisher has to ask themselves when they create an RPG in the post-OGL/D20 world is this:  Is my game *so much better* than an OGL/D20 option that I want to *force* my customers & players to pay a *tax* to play that game, and will those people perceive the value I'm offering and voluntarily submit to that taxation?




Whoa!  Is it just me or did somebody just spill a 55 gallon barrel of hubris in this thread?!   

Publishers might also ask themselves, "Is the OGL/d20 option really good enough that I want to forego trying to make something better?".  In other words, it's not beyond the realm of reason to ask youself if the game design you get when you use the OGL option is worth what you paid for it.

Another question they might want to ask is, "What real proof is there that learning different rules for different games is something the consumer actually thinks about when making gaming purchases?".  The only evidence I've ever seen has come directly from the entity that benefits most if such a thing is believed to be true by their competitors.  Yet, no OGL/d20 game even comes close to competing with D&D in the way that the Storyteller system or GURPS do, despite their "obvious" handicap in having a different ruleset than the market leader.


----------



## romp

RyanD said:
			
		

> The question each publisher has to ask themselves when they create an RPG in the post-OGL/D20 world is this:  Is my game *so much better* than an OGL/D20 option that I want to *force* my customers & players to pay a *tax* to play that game, and will those people perceive the value I'm offering and voluntarily submit to that taxation?




I had come to pretty much the same conclusion myself a while back, in setting forth into the brave little industry of RPG publishing, do you wnt the familiarity of the d20 logo on your product? If not then you need a lot of redeeming qualities on your side to get customers to buy a product that will demand extra time and effort (tax) to learn and use.


----------



## Staffan

RyanD said:
			
		

> I can tell you based on lots of readily available data that "percentages" are less "user friendly" than whole numbers - that's not an RPG thing, that's just a math thing.  And percentages are one of the first things you see when you open the book.  That's just one of many, many things that makes the game "complex".



If you're going to use percentiles as multipliers, perhaps (e.g. "Your carrying capacity is 25% of your strength score"). But used as success rates, they work pretty darn well.

On the Swedish RPG market, the absolute dominant game in the 80s was Drakar och Demoner, the first edition of which was a translation of Basic Roleplaying. Its market dominance in Sweden was akin to the dominance Dungeons & Dragons had in the US, possibly even more (though part of that probably had to do with Sweden having a smaller market overall, and thus less room for other games). That game used percentiles for skills. There was an expansion (Drakar och Demoner Expert) that changed the percentiles into d20 skill values, but the basic game still used percentiles, and it seemed to do pretty well with newbies.


----------



## romp

I have always preferred percentages in game stats, and I am not a math person despite having an engineering degree.  So I guess that I am bucking at least one trend in terms of the "mainstream".


----------



## RyanD

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Have you accounted for the possible effects of market saturation as part of the business slow-down? Or the changing demographics of the core audience for RPGs?




Yes.  I accounted for it.  Then I helped sell 300,000 player's handbooks in a month.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

RyanD said:
			
		

> Yes.  I accounted for it.  Then I helped sell 300,000 player's handbooks in a month.



The cut-throat pricing then didn't hurt with that volume either.


----------



## RyanD

Eric Anondson said:
			
		

> The cut-throat pricing then didn't hurt with that volume either.




The SRD was posted essentially the same day and was totally free.


----------



## The Shaman

RyanD said:
			
		

> Thus, "sales" are not an *DETERMINATOR* of "quality".  Sales are, over an extended period of time, an *INDICATOR* of quality - they represent a series of decisions made independently by a large number of people that the game is worth investment of limited resources - that it is, in fact, "better" _in the opinion of the players, with both intrinsic and external factors fully valued_ than its competition.



This is a strong argument - I concur.







			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> The issue of not using D20 (or any other game system) is not necessarily an issue of instrinsic "quality".



Absolutely.







			
				RyanD said:
			
		

> The question each publisher has to ask themselves when they create an RPG in the post-OGL/D20 world is this:  Is my game *so much better* than an OGL/D20 option that I want to *force* my customers & players to pay a *tax* to play that game, and will those people perceive the value I'm offering and voluntarily submit to that taxation?
> 
> My opinion is that for most games, that answer is usually "no".  Which is not the same thing as saying "Ryan says no other games should be published" or "Ryan thinks D20 is the only viable game" or even "Ryan thinks all RPGs should be D20".  *It would be fair to say that my opinion is that "RPGs that feature parties of characters who band together and seek challenges and be rewarded with increased power, sold through the traditional hobby gaming market, and designed to be played by hobby gaming players, will sell better and be more popular if they are OGL/D20 games than if they are not."*



I think your 'tax' analogy falls flat - if the players enjoy the system, then the 'tax' is willingly paid in full - but the section I've highlighted above I can accept as valid.

In all sincerity, I appreciate your time and effort to parse that out.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

RyanD said:
			
		

> Nobody can give me an example of a "bad quality" game that suceeded over time (let us say a minimum of 12 months) because it was backed by great marketing or a fantastically popular license.
> "





I can.  3rd edition D&D.  You'll never convince me being kicked in the groin is a "good" thing.  I've experienced it.  I don't like it.  Same with D&D.    I don't care if every other person in the world likes it.  That still makes it a bad game, as far as I'm concerned.

Role playing one battle and a shopping trip afterwards that takes up two gaming nights is not my idea of fun.  Wal-Mart the rpg might appeal to some folks, but not me.  Now, I'm not dissing D20 or the OGL in general, I like C&C, but 3e has way too many problems for me to ever consider it a good game.  

Thus, I prefer C&C.  It is a "good" game, because I enjoy it.  Nothing else matters.  I have fun when playing it.  I do not have fun playing 3e, so that makes it a "bad" game.  Only my experience counts.  Not yours, not the rest of the fricking world's either.   I'll continue to delude myself into thinking I'm having fun while I whitewash Tom's fence and play C&C.


----------



## Devall2000

In regard to naming a 'rules lite' RPG that lasted longer than 5 years,  the one that pops out in my mind is the Marvel Super Heroes RPG that was put out by TSR from 1984 thru the early 90's.

-Jamie


----------



## Smitty

*...*

You're right about that...


----------



## woodelf

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I'll refrain form the classic C&C/D&D 3.X and instead go for my favorite, the d6 SW vs d20 SW for an example.
> 
> I can create a non-jedi PC in d20 in 5 minutes. Any level. A jedi takes 10-15. I cannot create any character in d6 under 15 min, despite having alot less steps to go through.




Huh? You can't pick a template, allocate 7 points (well, dice) to skills (of which there are about 25, all printed on the character sheet already), and pick a name and description in under 15min? And yet you can make all the decisions for a D20 System character (such as generating and arranging stats, picking feats, calculating and allocating skill points) in 5 minutes? 



> Perhaps the greatest thing I dislike about rules-lite is being a PLAYER. I feel like I have less control over my own PCs action because ultimately, the guy at the end of the table will be the decider of my action's success and failure, not myself or even impartial dice. If the DM doesn't believe I can swing across the chasm with the princess, He will a.) SAY NO or b.) Make an extremely difficult TN/DC Check. With some formula of rules, I can determine MYSELF my chances of success/failure and decide if I wish to chance it. The DM, of course can asign additional modifiers ("The princess isn't as light as she appears") to keep up tension, but WILL KNOW if the stunt is out of my league.




That depends on the style of the game, as well as on how detailed its rules are. In plenty of rules-lite games, you *can* determine those things yourself--because the rules are specifically structured to put those decisions in the players hands, rather than the hands of the GM or the rules.



> I'd rather have a consistant, if heavier, ruled game than trust that my GM will come up with a fair and consistant ruling for such ad hoc options. Want my proof? My players NEVER tried to grapple, bull-rush or trip in combat until 3e rolled along.




That's not proof, that's anecdote. My players have given up trying most of those things, since we switched to D20 System (from lighter games), and, before they apparently gave up, they and i were regularly finding ourselves needing to improvise rules for doing something that the rules [Arcana Unearthed + D20SRD, that is] don't cover. It's been a few weeks since a really big combat--i'll be sure and pay attention to see if they try fancy maneuvers or just hack. And, honestly, i suspect it's partly because i was inconsistent--an inconsistency brought on by the complexity of D20 System, and the fact that it covers some things in detail and others not at all.

----
Oh, your comment about GMs having different styles reminds me of something i'm planning on trying out on the group next session. The Burning Wheel has "beliefs" which, in addition to defining the character, are explicitly a tool to define gameplay. That is, the GM can look at a character's beliefs, and know that that's what the player wants out of the game--why play a character questing for revenge, if you don't want to play about questing for revenge?

See, complex rules are a kludgy way to solve the problem of miscommunicated playstyles. If the problem is that the GM and players have different assumptions about how the game should go, isn't a better solution for the GM and players to talk about that and come to a shared understading of how the game should go? Surely that's better than relying on a complex ruleset that may define a playstyle that none of the players specifically wants. Yes, detailed rules will prevent arguments between the players, but unless they happen to define the playstyle you want, what's the point? Frex, let's say you *all* want a swashbuckling, free-flowing, bigger-than-life game, but have disagreements about exactly what that means--one person thinks "Errol Flynn", another thinks "Jet Li", and a third thinks "The Matrix". Obviously you're gonna have conflicts--especially if the Errol Flynn guy is applying those standards as GM, while the Jet Li and Matrix players are trying to do stunts that match what they think the genre should be. But using baseline D&D3E, while providing a common baseline, will provide a baseline that doesn't match *any* of the players' desires. 

Instead, you could stick with the relatively light system, and just add one specific rule, defining the standards of reality and heroicism.


----------



## The_Universe

woodelf said:
			
		

> Huh? You can't pick a template, allocate 7 points (well, dice) to skills (of which there are about 25, all printed on the character sheet already), and pick a name and description in under 15min? And yet you can make all the decisions for a D20 System character (such as generating and arranging stats, picking feats, calculating and allocating skill points) in 5 minutes?
> 
> 
> 
> That depends on the style of the game, as well as on how detailed its rules are. In plenty of rules-lite games, you *can* determine those things yourself--because the rules are specifically structured to put those decisions in the players hands, rather than the hands of the GM or the rules.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not proof, that's anecdote. My players have given up trying most of those things, since we switched to D20 System (from lighter games), and, before they apparently gave up, they and i were regularly finding ourselves needing to improvise rules for doing something that the rules [Arcana Unearthed + D20SRD, that is] don't cover. It's been a few weeks since a really big combat--i'll be sure and pay attention to see if they try fancy maneuvers or just hack. And, honestly, i suspect it's partly because i was inconsistent--an inconsistency brought on by the complexity of D20 System, and the fact that it covers some things in detail and others not at all.
> 
> ----
> Oh, your comment about GMs having different styles reminds me of something i'm planning on trying out on the group next session. The Burning Wheel has "beliefs" which, in addition to defining the character, are explicitly a tool to define gameplay. That is, the GM can look at a character's beliefs, and know that that's what the player wants out of the game--why play a character questing for revenge, if you don't want to play about questing for revenge?
> 
> See, complex rules are a kludgy way to solve the problem of miscommunicated playstyles. If the problem is that the GM and players have different assumptions about how the game should go, isn't a better solution for the GM and players to talk about that and come to a shared understading of how the game should go? Surely that's better than relying on a complex ruleset that may define a playstyle that none of the players specifically wants. Yes, detailed rules will prevent arguments between the players, but unless they happen to define the playstyle you want, what's the point? Frex, let's say you *all* want a swashbuckling, free-flowing, bigger-than-life game, but have disagreements about exactly what that means--one person thinks "Errol Flynn", another thinks "Jet Li", and a third thinks "The Matrix". Obviously you're gonna have conflicts--especially if the Errol Flynn guy is applying those standards as GM, while the Jet Li and Matrix players are trying to do stunts that match what they think the genre should be. But using baseline D&D3E, while providing a common baseline, will provide a baseline that doesn't match *any* of the players' desires.
> 
> Instead, you could stick with the relatively light system, and just add one specific rule, defining the standards of reality and heroicism.



 What's funny (to me) about this is that when someone comes up with an anecdote that doesn't jive with our own particular anecdotes, we yell "that's not proof! That's an anecdote!" all in a thread that's essentially about beating up the only guy that *has* proof. 

If anecdotes that don't agree with you don't make proof, and empirical evidence doesn't make proof - nothing makes proof. 

Sheesh!


----------



## Gentlegamer

The_Universe said:
			
		

> all in a thread that's essentially about beating up the only guy that *has* proof.



Proof that the _only_ reason people think that "rules lite" RPGs are "simpler" or "better" is because they _desperately want it to be true_?

I think not.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

I think all we've proved in these threads is that playstyles are sufficiently different that we have a hard time understanding what a foreign playstyle is like. So if different systems appeal to different play styles, it's difficult to understand why that would be the case. (Well, that's what I've learned from the thread, anyway.)

And I think that is a point that applies right back to the original post. RyanD talked about a study that had a single playstyle addressed with multiple systems, and lighter systems didn't speed things up. That makes me think that the control variable (play style, for instance frequent rules disputes and a high focus on detail) was more important than the modified variable (complexity of system). 

I've said for a while that I'd grant that a rules-light system won't be faster than D&D if you play it exactly the same way that you'd play D&D. But it's probably more relevant to look at how different systems work when used with the style of play they support.


----------



## CSgeekHero

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> Maybe this is just pie-in-the-sky, but I think that the potential market for people who would play games about "Fictional characters dealing with compelling situations" is a lot larger than the market for games about "Party of adventurers dealing with conflicts, including tactical realistic combat, to grow in power". But people in the first category aren't going to be interested in complex mechanics or extensive prep time.



link

The above link goes to a story about video games. It is from 2002 and its forcast is close, but has actually been a little conservative on strength of games and the weakness of movies.
Video games are for all intents and purposes based on wargaming and OD&D. You hack-n-slash, collect treasure, level up. This is the essentially the same as "...dealing with conflicts, including tactical combat, to grow in power". Without video games they would be playing D&D, many of them do anyway.

SweeneyTodd your pie-in-the-sky hope isn't there. If you are designing an rpg to draw interest in new gamers, you are going to use a paradime that is easy for the newbie to understand. What market are you going to tap? The wannabe arteest who is really some frustrated actor or the gamer, average age 28 to 30 who is willing to spend the money for their fun?
If I were to try and create a new game, I'd be aiming high for a piece of the gamers budget.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

CSgeekHero said:
			
		

> If I were to try and create a new game, I'd be aiming high for a piece of the gamers budget.



That market's already taken, that's my perspective. Compete with D&D at what it does? No thank you. 

Maybe it's more of a brainstorming exercise. What if there was something inherent to roleplaying that appealed to people who watch _Law and Order_? Or watch "chick flicks"? Or read mystery novels? (Hey, there's "How to Host a Murder" games out there; they're not considered roleplaying, but they involve playing a character and solving a scenario.)

What would _Bridget Jones_, the RPG, look like? No rules for falling damage. Or maybe just damage to your Self-Esteem when you slip and fall on your behind while chatting up a guy. The rules would probably deal mostly with relationships and personal hangups, and conflict would be about balancing "be a successful independent woman" with "find true love". Or something, I'm just thinking out loud here.

It wouldn't use D&D 3.5, that's for sure.  Okay, sure, no gamers would buy it. But the whole "How to Host a Murder" thing makes me think. I imagine those games could be improved by importing techniques from traditional RPGs. Not all of them, but maybe one or two. Maybe there's a theoretical Bridget Jones RPG that someday comes out that has an interesting technique we could import into traditional roleplaying.

That's sort of what I'm getting at. When we focus our attention solely on "roleplaying as it is now", we miss out on some interesting possibilities. That has nothing to do with forcing a change to roleplaying as it is now.


----------



## The_Universe

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Proof that the _only_ reason people think that "rules lite" RPGs are "simpler" or "better" is because they _desperately want it to be true_?
> 
> I think not.



 Now you're mixing posts so you can stay mad. You're combining one thing that Mr. Dancey *does* have proof of with a later statement in which he details his conclusions *from* the empirical evidence. 

The proof is about observable speed, not about preference.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

CSgeekHero said:
			
		

> Video games are for all intents and purposes based on wargaming and OD&D. You hack-n-slash, collect treasure, level up. This is the essentially the same as "...dealing with conflicts, including tactical combat, to grow in power". Without video games they would be playing D&D, many of them do anyway.




That's a gross oversimplification of the video game market.  Actually, it's just plain wildly inaccurate.

The Economist article isn't talking about the strength of PC or console RPGs (more on the latter below), it's talking about ALL video games.

There's certainly a D&D-derived core to games like Final Fantasy and Baldur's Gate, and even those further afield, like Zelda or Devil May Cry, that basically revolve around 'killing things and taking their stuff.'  Except that Zelda and Final Fantasy _don't_ revolve around killing things and taking their stuff.  Final Fantasy 8 essentially did away with treasure, and the past five installments of the main series have been, at least from their designers' perspectives, more about exploring themes and telling stories than about hacking and slashing.  Zelda and its derivatives are and always have been primarily about solving puzzles rather than fighting.

Lacking those games, video game players who don't already *might* play D&D.  They might also be turned off by the complexity of the rules (certainly not an issue in any of those games except the D&D licensed Baldur's Gate), the lack of a strong GM-led storyline, the discomfort 'let's pretend' causes in some adults, or even, ironically, the emphasis on killing things and taking their stuff.

Most fighting games have no 'leveling up' element whatsoever.  They have almost no D&D derivation, except perhaps in their often fantastic settings - but D&D is hardly the original wellspring of fantasy.

Sports games sometimes include a 'leveling up' element, but this traces its ancestry to fantasy sports, not roleplaying games.

Platform games, first person shooters, (older, pre-WC3) real-time strategy games, most turn-based strategy games, free-roaming thug sims, flight simulators, rail shooters, dance games, espionage actioners, puzzle games, party games - these may have some D&D roots, but most of them are much more closely related to some other type of non-electronic game.

Some of these markets probably can't be tapped by non-electronic games, some of them never will be because the electronic form covers their needs, some are already covered by games like Axis & Allies, Monopoly, Risk, Clue, or, indeed, Dungeons & Dragons.

But to claim that if electronic games were to go away, their players would ALL (or even mostly) play D&D seems specious at best.


----------



## CSgeekHero

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> That market's already taken, that's my perspective. Compete with D&D at what it does? No thank you.



Go tell Mongoose and Green Ronin to stop making d20/OGL books. Go tell the creators of Dawning Star, Bulldogs!, Traveller20, and so on that the market is taken and no one plays d20 for any genre/setting other than D&D.

The point I made has to do with the type of game that people play. The video game market is full of people who expect a certain type of game. I play video games, they have replaced rpgs as my main source of game entertainment. However, I don't always play video games. I like rpgs to give me a break from the typical round of Grand Theft Auto or KotOR or Full Spectrum Warrior. The kind of rpg I like to play...a game with a strong gamist/simulationist style. So, I am part of that market that d20/GURPS/Hero has tapped into for a revenue stream. Speaking from that demographic, I need a rules heavier system and I am not atypical of this particular market.


----------



## CSgeekHero

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> That's a gross oversimplification of the video game market.  Actually, it's just plain wildly inaccurate.
> 
> The Economist article isn't talking about the strength of PC or console RPGs (more on the latter below), it's talking about ALL video games.
> 
> There's certainly a D&D-derived core to games like Final Fantasy and Baldur's Gate, and even those further afield, like Zelda or Devil May Cry, that basically revolve around 'killing things and taking their stuff.' Except that Zelda and Final Fantasy _don't_ revolve around killing things and taking their stuff. Final Fantasy 8 essentially did away with treasure, and the past five installments of the main series have been, at least from their designers' perspectives, more about exploring themes and telling stories than about hacking and slashing. Zelda and its derivatives are and always have been primarily about solving puzzles rather than fighting.
> 
> Lacking those games, video game players who don't already *might* play D&D. They might also be turned off by the complexity of the rules (certainly not an issue in any of those games except the D&D licensed Baldur's Gate), the lack of a strong GM-led storyline, the discomfort 'let's pretend' causes in some adults, or even, ironically, the emphasis on killing things and taking their stuff.
> 
> Most fighting games have no 'leveling up' element whatsoever. They have almost no D&D derivation, except perhaps in their often fantastic settings - but D&D is hardly the original wellspring of fantasy.
> 
> Sports games sometimes include a 'leveling up' element, but this traces its ancestry to fantasy sports, not roleplaying games.
> 
> Platform games, first person shooters, (older, pre-WC3) real-time strategy games, most turn-based strategy games, free-roaming thug sims, flight simulators, rail shooters, dance games, espionage actioners, puzzle games, party games - these may have some D&D roots, but most of them are much more closely related to some other type of non-electronic game.
> 
> Some of these markets probably can't be tapped by non-electronic games, some of them never will be because the electronic form covers their needs, some are already covered by games like Axis & Allies, Monopoly, Risk, Clue, or, indeed, Dungeons & Dragons.
> 
> But to claim that if electronic games were to go away, their players would ALL (or even mostly) play D&D seems specious at best.




It is not a gross oversimplification, nor is it wildly inaccurate.

I was playing Final Fantasy X a few days ago and I did receive cp, money, and potions when I killed some nasty creatures. You do have to go and collect up those mirrors. Last time I checked, when you came across better armor or weapons in Half-Life 2 you needed them to gear up for a big fight. This is all sidebar to the main mistake you made from my post...
I'm not assuming that this refers to rpg video games. I refer to the video game market as a whole. The preponderance of video games(i.e. rpgs, fps, rts) are built around ideas like capture-the-flag, hack-n-slash, solve-puzzle-to-get-treasure and so on which come from wargames(rts, sbc) and rpgs of varying styles(rpg, fps, tps).

These markets can be tapped into and WotC is attempting, I'd say successfully, to gain access into this market. I used to rpg, switched to video games, but now play rpgs as a diversion. Of course, all of that depends on when real life lets me do any of it. If rpgs can crack 10% of that market, that's 1 billion dollars.

Remember what the focus of this thread has become rules heavy versus rules light. Everyone accepts d20 as rules heavy and yet the system has more appeal to video gamers than any rules light approach. So, if your designing a game and considering an inhouse system or the d20/OGL license you must be mindful that to _expand _your market you need to address what style of play that the majority of gamers want to play.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

CSgeekHero said:
			
		

> It is not a gross oversimplification, nor is it wildly inaccurate.
> 
> I was playing Final Fantasy X a few days ago and I did receive cp, money, and potions when I killed some nasty creatures. You do have to go and collect up those mirrors. Last time I checked, when you came across better armor or weapons in Half-Life 2 you needed them to gear up for a big fight. This is all sidebar to the main mistake you made from my post...
> I'm not assuming that this refers to rpg video games. I refer to the video game market as a whole. The preponderance of video games(i.e. rpgs, fps, rts) are built around ideas like capture-the-flag, hack-n-slash, solve-puzzle-to-get-treasure and so on which come from wargames(rts, sbc) and rpgs of varying styles(rpg, fps, tps).




I'd say that the preponderance of games _you play_ revolved around those ideas.

I suppose the huge (in the US, the largest, last I checked) sports game market is somehow excepted, as are the fighting, puzzle and sim genres, along with all the other games to which this does not apply.  Those constitute, if not a majority, only a very small minority.

For that matter, I strongly question whether those elements come from RPGs or wargames in any form.  Perhaps the original platform jumpers and rail shooters took the concept of 'powerups' from RPGs; I'm not sure.  Other pre-electronic games (such as, say, chess?) allow you to improve your 'playing piece' by completing a certain objective.  Regardless of its antediluvian ancestry, the concept of powerups came to the video game market by way of platformers and shooters and became nigh ubiquitous on the strength of their influence.  I'd say Half-Life 2 derives far more from Mario than from D&D in this respect.

Capture the flag predates RPGs and presumably even formal wargames.

Hack-n-slash in a game does indeed come from RPGs and wargames, I suppose.

Solve-the-puzzle comes from, y'know, puzzle based games.  Like crossword puzzles, mazes, that sort of thing?  Predates RPGs.  We've already covered powerups.



			
				CSgeekHero said:
			
		

> These markets can be tapped into and WotC is attempting, I'd say successfully, to gain access into this market. I used to rpg, switched to video games, but now play rpgs as a diversion. Of course, all of that depends on when real life lets me do any of it. If rpgs can crack 10% of that market, that's 1 billion dollars.




I'm not sure how much success WotC is having at this, but I certainly wish them the best.  Sales are down from the phenomenal heights of the 3.0 core books, to be sure, but we'll see how things shake out.

I agree it's a valid goal.  It does, however, seem to me that WotC is making more of an attempt to recruit from the ranks of miniatures wargamers and CCG players, and that, too is a valid goal - perhaps a more obtainable one.



			
				CSgeekHero said:
			
		

> Remember what the focus of this thread has become rules heavy versus rules light. Everyone accepts d20 as rules heavy and yet the system has more appeal to video gamers than any rules light approach. So, if your designing a game and considering an inhouse system or the d20/OGL license you must be mindful that to _expand _your market you need to address what style of play that the majority of gamers want to play.




I accept _D&D_ as rules-heavy.  d20, stripped of D&Disms, is really only rules-medium.

Anyway, I agree with your general point, even though your assessment of electronic gaming remains wildly off-base.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

CSgeekHero said:
			
		

> Remember what the focus of this thread has become rules heavy versus rules light. Everyone accepts d20 as rules heavy and yet the system has more appeal to video gamers than any rules light approach. So, if your designing a game and considering an inhouse system or the d20/OGL license you must be mindful that to _expand _your market you need to address what style of play that the majority of gamers want to play.



I know that there's lots of people responding to lots of other people here, so I'll restate where I'm coming from. 'Cause I don't disagree with you.

I grant that the majority of gamers like D&D, because it's what they buy. I even grant, after thinking about it, that if you play a rules-light game the same way you play D&D, with high detail, it might not be faster in play than D&D is.

What I won't budge on, like Gandalf yelling "NONE SHALL PASS!" to the Balrog, is that there are other styles of play. Styles that work better with other systems, by which I mean with a very different focus than D&D, and much less complexity. 

And, call me crazy, I think it's possible that there are people out there who wouldn't enjoy D&D, but would find enjoyment in a game, involving roleplaying, played in one of those other styles. I think that's true because I run some of those games, for people who weren't interested in D&D at all, and they have fun.

(Quick example from the "not a game" game we're playing now. My fiancee's PC is a thirtysomething bartender whose kids died and husband disappeared on the same night. She's been dealing with being haunted by those children, figuring out what happened to her husband, and trying to get by. There's other things going on, but that's the focus of her PC's life. We're coming up on our final session, and she might get involved in combat for the first time since she ducked to avoid a pissed-off customer with a gun in the first session. Yes, your average D&D player would have hated this. We've had a blast.)


----------



## Meadred

Seems I haven't kept as up to date with former and current employees of WotC as I should have before posting in this thread. Therefore I have withdrawn my earlier post. If I have hurt anyone's feelings, I apologize.


----------



## Maggan

*Economical necessity?*



			
				Meadred said:
			
		

> I guess what I'm trying to say is that mr Dancey's comment most probably stems from his affiliation with WotC and the D&D product brand. Thus his comment should be viewed in the light of commercial necessity ("grain of salt the size of Jupiter", I believe an earlier poster said). On a personal note, I have to confess I seriously doubt his altruistic views on my enjoyment of D&D.




Whereas I agree on the premise that we should examine each and every comment from mr. Dancey in relation to possible motives (indeed all comments, not only those by Mearls and Dancey, should be examined in relation to possible motives for making them), I don't believe that his comments are based on an "economical necessity".

It was a long time ago (as Internet time goes) that Dancey was a part of WotC, and he has no royalties as far as the use of OGL and d20STL by other companies, so to say that he is speaking out of an interest of making more money, is unfair.

Other interests may of course apply, such as wanting to prove that he was right, or loyalty to a brand and system he helped create, and so on. I just don't see Dancey propagating his viewpoint for financial gain.

/M


----------



## MoogleEmpMog

Meadred said:
			
		

> I have to say that this thread is on the verge of becoming ludicrous! People sniping at each other over whether "rules-lite/complexity lite" is better than "rules heavy/complexity heavy". I thought roleplaying was about having fun - not proving the superiority of your personal opinion and experience!
> 
> Of course, the people that have personal connections to WotC and d20/OGL are going to say that "rules-lite/complexity lite" games aren't as good or provide as much fun as their rules system! It would be really stupid of them to say otherwise. All commercial firms want to make a profit - preferably a large and steady profit. The best way of doing this is by providing your customers with a "good enough" (in the sense that most of your customers will return and purchase more products from you) product and with continous upgrades, updates, additions, etc. that your customers feel that they must have.
> 
> So, in the commercial sense, the only reason WotC wants d20 to be fun for us players is so that we will remain customers. Currently D&D most probably have reached what is known as "cash-cow" status (from the Boston Consulting Group's four-field product maturity matrix); it's is a product that can be "milked" (hence the term cash-_cow_) for profit. Of course, WotC wants D&D to remain a cash-cow for as long as possible. Therefore, it is necessary for WotC to debunk any other rules system that seems to be gaining support. If they didn't, it would jeopardize their profits. Debunking other rules systems also serves another purpose, namely to enhance the group spirit of the d20/OGL user community by asserting their superiority to other roleplayers. It's all simple commercial logic and marketing!
> 
> I guess what I'm trying to say is that mr Dancey's comment most probably stems from his affiliation with WotC and the D&D product brand. Thus his comment should be viewed in the light of commercial necessity ("grain of salt the size of Jupiter", I believe an earlier poster said). On a personal note, I have to confess I seriously doubt his altruistic views on my enjoyment of D&D.
> 
> Furthermore, I definitely believe that the kind of gaming experience one desires differs from person to person according to personal taste and experience. So, I refuse to believe that there is one rules system that is better than all the others. Depending on what kind of game you play (sci-fi, modern, fantasy) and the gaming group (new acquintances, old friends, long-term, gamers' personal preferences, etc.) a certain rules system might suit you better than the others, but it doesn't make it _the best _rules system.
> 
> Aarrgh,
> Meadred




This makes sense!  I mean, just look at the evidence!

1. Dancey doesn't work for Wizards of the Coast anymore, and Mearls didn't until very recently.  Thus, the former at least has nothing to gain financially from his statements and the latter has hardly been shy about endorsing a certain rules level before his present employ.
2. Dancey's study was conducted before the release of 3e, not recently, and guided the course of D&D as WotC's product rather than being in response to it.  Thus, WotC could have shaped D&D into whatever form it liked, and said study drove many of its developments.
3. Mearls posted Dancey's comments on his blog as part of a discussion on game design.  It was simply picked up on here.

Nonetheless, I'm sure the only possible explanation for results that don't conform to your anecdotal evidence (which probably comes from an entirely different edition) is the fell grasp of some cyclopean corporate titan.

 :\ 

I think I'll hang on to my grain of salt.  Or, rather, apply it elsewhere.


----------



## Akrasia

The_Universe said:
			
		

> ... You're combining one thing that Mr. Dancey *does* have proof of with a later statement in which he details his conclusions *from* the empirical evidence.
> 
> The proof is about observable speed, not about preference.




'Proof'?  Oh please...  

Mr. Dancy's (now out of date) study has to do with players who do _not_ regularly play with each other.  Thus his 'proof' (a silly word for an empirical study, btw -- the study in question is _not_ a mathematical or logical 'proof') is inapplicable to most groups' experiences.

(On a completely different note, I am amazed that this thread is still alive.  It is a mad gibbering horror at this point -- and one that I gladly feed.)


----------



## fanboy2000

Akrasia said:
			
		

> (On a completely different note, I am amazed that this thread is still alive.  It is a mad gibbering horror at this point -- and one that I gladly feed.)



Now that the thread's size has been mentioned, I give it three pages. Most of the posts on those three pages will probably consist of people commenting on how big the thread is.


----------



## Zudrak

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> Now that the thread's size has been mentioned, I give it three pages. Most of the posts on those three pages will probably consist of people commenting on how big the thread is.




Wow.  What a big thread.    

To perhaps add much Good Humor to this thread, I think we should now argue chocolate versus vanilla.  Here's a vote for vanilla-chocolate swirl.


----------



## Turanil

This thread could probably go on forever. I don't need to read any of the last 876 posts, and the ones before, I almost forgot what they were about.

So, IN ALL EVIDENCE, those who critique the fact that they don't have to prove anything that wasn't said prior to their former statement, while obviously this hasn't been debunked, as whether one would consider true or false is now irrelevant, so the proponent of the former opinion are misled but totally unaware that what they pretend shouldn't and cannot be held as proof whenever the real subject is not about the content but the form, so rule-lite or rule-heavy rules (uber alles).

This had to be said.

Just for the sake of elevating the discussion.


----------



## Gentlegamer

*head explodes*


----------



## Gentlegamer

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Now you're mixing posts so you can stay mad. You're combining one thing that Mr. Dancey *does* have proof of with a later statement in which he details his conclusions *from* the empirical evidence.
> 
> The proof is about observable speed, not about preference.




From the first post in this thread, quoting Ryan Dancey:
"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."

He has no empirical evidence of any kind to support this kind of statement.


----------



## The_Universe

Akrasia said:
			
		

> 'Proof'?  Oh please...
> 
> Mr. Dancy's (now out of date) study has to do with players who do _not_ regularly play with each other.  Thus his 'proof' (a silly word for an empirical study, btw -- the study in question is _not_ a mathematical or logical 'proof') is inapplicable to most groups' experiences.
> 
> (On a completely different note, I am amazed that this thread is still alive.  It is a mad gibbering horror at this point -- and one that I gladly feed.)



 Fine then, we'll do it this way - I have a different anecdote, and I think my anecdote is better because it's my anecdote. Your anecdote doesn't count, because it's not the same as my anecdote. Also, your anecdote hurts my feelings, and makes me feel like I'm unpopular. At the very least, it makes me feel like my game isn't popular enough. 

But I have anecdote that says it is! 

...or we could use an empirical study. But hey - as long as you're happy...


----------



## JohnSnow

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> From the first post in this thread, quoting Ryan Dancey:
> "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."
> 
> He has no empirical evidence of any kind to support this kind of statement.




True. He doesn't. Which is why he said it was his OPINION.

What he does have empirical evidence for is that character creation and conflict resolution took just as long in the rules-light games that he studied as they did in the games with more rules. So in other words, _based on his research,_ the biggest claim made by proponents of rules-light games - that they have faster character creation and conflict resolution - doesn't hold up. Lots of people disagree, but they can't present any evidence based on "observation" of gaming groups rather than participation in one.

Frame of reference matters. If you're involved in the game, it might seem to go faster when, in reality, it doesn't.

Of course, now a bunch more people will come out with anecdotal evidence to "prove" me (and Ryan) wrong, but I doubt even one of them will be from someone who watched two groups play different systems, as opposed to someone who was a participant in those groups.

Now, I freely admit you can come up with the mechanics for a rules-light character faster if there are fewer choices to make. However, I submit that the story side of character development coexists with the mechanics side in rules-heavier games. When the character's mechanically DONE, he's totally DONE. By contrast, in rules-light systems, I submit that while the mechanics side is faster, the story development continues and creation as a whole takes just as long.

So you can have a hollow, mechanically simple creation (a playing piece with no soul). But if you want a well-developed character, you spend just as long creating that character. In the rules-heavier system, the difference is that you're not done with the mechanical side 1/4 of the way into the total time required to do that development. Of course, that might not be what Ryan meant, but I think it might be.


----------



## The_Universe

> Of course, that might not be what Ryan meant, but I think it might be.



Based on what I'm reading here, I'm pretty sure Ryan meant that he wanted to kick everyone's dog(s). Or spit on their grandmothers. Sheesh!  

All I know for sure is that he definitely *didn't* see an observable trend in length of character creation regardless of the "liteness" of the system involved. After all, I have an anecdote from some time ago that (though I was *not* timing the procedure in an effort to come up with empirical trends of my own) I'm pretty sure might conflict with that. And since I have that anecdote, he must want to spit on my grandmother. 

Obviously.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Based on what I'm reading here, I'm pretty sure Ryan meant that he wanted to kick everyone's dog(s). Or spit on their grandmothers. Sheesh!
> 
> All I know for sure is that he definitely *didn't* see an observable trend in length of character creation regardless of the "liteness" of the system involved.




That's because he "desperately (didn't) want to."


----------



## Akrasia

The_Universe said:
			
		

> Fine then, we'll do it this way - I have a different anecdote, and I think my anecdote is better because it's my anecdote. Your anecdote doesn't count, because it's not the same as my anecdote. Also, your anecdote hurts my feelings, and makes me feel like I'm unpopular. At the very least, it makes me feel like my game isn't popular enough.
> 
> But I have anecdote that says it is!
> 
> ...or we could use an empirical study. But hey - as long as you're happy...




I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.  I have _nothing_ against 'empirical studies'.

My point -- which you apparently fail to grasp -- is that the study in question did _not_ involve players who regularly game together.  Rather, it involved players without any history gaming with each other.  

Hence, even if it was a well-conducted study, it is _inapplicable_ to most groups' experiences.

_Comprendez-vous?_


----------



## The_Universe

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> That's because he "desperately (didn't) want to."



Obviously. I see conspiracy whenever something disagrees with me, too.


----------



## Akrasia

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> ...What he does have empirical evidence for is that character creation and conflict resolution took just as long in the rules-light games that he studied as they did in the games with more rules. So in other words, _based on his research,_ the biggest claim made by proponents of rules-light games - that they have faster character creation and conflict resolution - doesn't hold up. Lots of people disagree, but they can't present any evidence based on "observation" of gaming groups rather than participation in one.
> ....




The results of any 'empirical study' can only be understood if one clearly understands the variables in question.

Dancey's study concerns players who do _not_ regularly game together.  Given that, it does not suprise me at all that 'rules light' games would not be any faster than 'rules heavy games'.

However, the study is completely inapplicable to the actual experiences of most gamers (who tend to play with the same people over time).


----------



## fanboy2000

If a group of gamers has never played together, wouldn't a rules-heavy game have more non-fun rules arguments than a rules-light game? 

Personally, I think Dancey's observations are a little better than personal experience, but not by much. Social science's flaws increase exponentially when applied to personal taste. 

Speaking of science, I'll have to drop in on the other thread and ask if Mr. Dancey had a null-hypothesis.....


----------



## Storm Raven

rabindranath72 said:
			
		

> Do not worry investing time, lots of us did it and fortunately changed their minds




Yes, and many of us found that it took orders of magnitude less time than the "hours and hours" to make high level characters that lots of people moan and whine about. For various reasons, I recently put together a pile of mid to high level characters of all stripes and sizes, and none of them took more than a half an hour to create, even using several optional rules from UA.


----------



## Storm Raven

fredramsey said:
			
		

> Movement rate for unencumbered human = 12"
> 
> Converting for indoor movement = 120 feet
> 
> Converting for battlemat scale of 1 square = 5' (and it was, or you could never stand side by side in a 10' square) = 24".




This is where you go wrong. Battlemat scale was 1 square = 10 feet. Check your 1e PHB again. They even give rules for how many characters can stand and fight in such an area (and it wasn't two abreast). Everything else about your post hinges on this erroneous assumption, and hence, is entirely innaccurate.


----------



## Turanil

IMO: Bolferg stalo miniag over sulidonem et aegiris tufat.

Zeratilu ofadlurgis quateth, et pobutis wandoom sokal. So, as retumbaridiis somh, slug at voulbardou, glashek +1 vloubardane. Klanklo klunky!   

(More later)


----------



## ColonelHardisson

Turanil said:
			
		

> IMO: Bolferg stalo miniag over sulidonem et aegiris tufat.
> 
> Zeratilu ofadlurgis quateth, et pobutis wandoom sokal. So, as retumbaridiis somh, slug at voulbardou, glashek +1 vloubardane. Klanklo klunky!
> 
> (More later)




Yes, but dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi. Nam liber tempor cum soluta nobis eleifend option congue nihil imperdiet doming id quod mazim placerat facer possim assum. Typi non habent claritatem insitam; est usus legentis in iis qui facit eorum claritatem. Investigationes demonstraverunt lectores legere me lius quod ii legunt saepius. Claritas est etiam processus dynamicus, qui sequitur mutationem consuetudium lectorum. Mirum est notare quam littera gothica, quam nunc putamus parum claram, anteposuerit litterarum formas humanitatis per seacula quarta decima et quinta decima. Eodem modo typi, qui nunc nobis videntur parum clari, fiant sollemnes in futurum.


----------



## Turanil

> Frame of reference <...> can come up with <...> a hollow, mechanically simple <...> piece with no soul. But if you want <...> just as long <...> that <...> difference <...> into the total <...> that might not be what <...> it might be.



So, in other words:

Eb thgim ti tahw eb ton thgim taht latot eht otni ecnereffid taht gnol sa tsuj tnaw uoy fi tub. Luos on htiw eceip elpmis yllacinahcem wolloh a htiw pu emoc nac ecnerefer fo emarf.


----------



## Turanil

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> Yes, but dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat. Ut wisi enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exerci tation ullamcorper suscipit lobortis nisl ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis autem vel eum iriure dolor in hendrerit in vulputate velit esse molestie consequat, vel illum dolore eu feugiat nulla facilisis at vero eros et accumsan et iusto odio dignissim qui blandit praesent luptatum zzril delenit augue duis dolore te feugait nulla facilisi. Nam liber tempor cum soluta nobis eleifend option congue nihil imperdiet doming id quod mazim placerat facer possim assum. Typi non habent claritatem insitam; est usus legentis in iis qui facit eorum claritatem. Investigationes demonstraverunt lectores legere me lius quod ii legunt saepius. Claritas est etiam processus dynamicus, qui sequitur mutationem consuetudium lectorum. Mirum est notare quam littera gothica, quam nunc putamus parum claram, anteposuerit litterarum formas humanitatis per seacula quarta decima et quinta decima. Eodem modo typi, qui nunc nobis videntur parum clari, fiant sollemnes in futurum.



At least someone really understands the problem at hand!! The proofs are obvious, and I can only agree with you. This should *CLOSE* the debate indeed.


----------



## Turanil

Of course, to fairly conclude the thread, I think it's good that I quote myself:


			
				Alien Buffoon said:
			
		

> So, IN ALL EVIDENCE, those who critique the fact that they don't have to prove anything that wasn't said prior to their former statement, while obviously this hasn't been debunked, as whether one would consider true or false is now irrelevant, so the proponent of the former opinion are misled but totally unaware that what they pretend shouldn't and cannot be held as proof whenever the real subject is not about the content but the form, so rule-lite or rule-heavy rules (uber alles).


----------



## SweeneyTodd

fanboy2000 said:
			
		

> If a group of gamers has never played together, wouldn't a rules-heavy game have more non-fun rules arguments than a rules-light game?



Nah, see, that was one of the assumptions, that whenever gamers get together they're going to argue about the rules. The idea was that rules-heavy games arbitrated those arguments better. (Yes, that was brought up as part of the study.)

I feel pretty lucky to have a group that doesn't argue much at all, much less about picking up heavy things or jumping over pits, so I figure the study's not relevant to my experiences regardless of what it says.  We play rules-light, it works for us, we have fun. Why I decided that expressing such things happen through arguing with people in this thread is beyond me.


----------



## Turanil

Yourself said:
			
		

> Blah blah blah as well as blah blah blah.



So, after having read *ALL* this thread, I finally realize that *YOU* are definitively *RIGHT*. Not that the others are wrong, mind you. But obviously, you are right. I am so glad to have changed my mind and accept the truth. At least, I will be able to game in peace.  

So now, that we all know that everything *YOU* said is true, we are pretty much done with this, and we must all thank you.  

So: thanks everybody for coming, *YOU* were right and opened my mind to a new level of gaming. For all of this you are now praised in our prayers. Your contribution was invaluable, and after 1000+ posts, the *TRUTH* is eventually standing in front of our eyes in all its golden beauty. So, thanks to the LORD.  

The beers and free tickets for Gencon are given at the exit.  

Thank you everybody!


----------



## Jdvn1

... You're awesome, Turanil.


----------



## Storm Raven

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Is McDonalds the 'best' food because of its sales figures?




For the market segment that McDonalds represents, probably. Lots of people forget what McDonalds (and its subsequent imitators like Burger King and Wendy's) mostly replaced: the greasy spoon style restaurant. The truck stop/road house.

Some of those places were real good. Most had food that tasted like total crap, and cleanliness standards that would make a pig frightened. If you knew where the good ones were, you could eat well. Otherwise, you were left guessing. In the town I live in, I know which restaurants are good and which are bad. But if I'm driving from Virginia to Illinois, and need to stop in Nowhereville, Tennesee for lunch, I'm probably going to go with McDonalds or the equivalent, because I'll know what I'm getting.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Coming soon:  film documentary "Super Size Me" documenting one gaming group's use of "rules heavy" RPGs and the adverse affects it has on their gaming.


----------



## woodelf

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> And I did it without using fancy words like orthogonal (what's wrong with perpendicular, anyway?)




Perpendicular is a strictly-geometric term. Orthogonal can be a geometric term, but is more often a statistical term. It is meaningless to refer to two qualities as "perpendicular"--they have no geometric relationship, not being shapes or objects or anything of the sort. However, two qualities can have an orthogonal relationship, because all that means is that they are unrelated.


----------



## Akrasia

woodelf said:
			
		

> Perpendicular is a strictly-geometric term. Orthogonal can be a geometric term, but is more often a statistical term. It is meaningless to refer to two qualities as "perpendicular"--they have no geometric relationship, not being shapes or objects or anything of the sort. However, two qualities can have an orthogonal relationship, because all that means is that they are unrelated.




You're going off on a tangent here.


----------



## woodelf

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Yes. Exactly. Its about power.
> 
> A RH system gives more power to the players because they have a firmer grip on what they can do and have rules they can use to do them.
> 
> A RL system gives more power to the DM because he can adjunctate the game without being pounded to death by hundreds of rules.
> 
> I doubt there will ever be a happy medium.




Absolutely not true. What is unquestionably true is that a rules-heavy system gives more power to the rules, and thus less to the players (collectively--including the GM), while a rules-lite system gives more power to the players (collectively--including the GM) and reserves less for the rules. How the players' power is distributed between the GM and others is almost completely unrelated to how much power the ruleset has, at least theoretically. In practice, i don't think i've ever seen a really crunchy system that gave the non-GM players much power. All the games that i know of that give the players disproportionate power (more than the GM, that is) are also extremely rules-lite. 

[And, to hopefully forestall arguments, i challenge the notion that D&D3E is player-enabling. All the players are expected to abide strictly by the rules. Only the GM is explicitly allowed to defy the rules, even if it is discouraged. So, there is nothing the players can do that the GM can't and there is something the GM can do that the players can't. Clearly, the GM has more power than the players. This is not necessarily the case in all RPGs--there are RPGs where all have equal "rights", and there are even those where the players at least occasionally have more power. In fact, i think i can dig up at least one RPG where the player has the lion's share of power.]


----------



## Staffan

Akrasia said:
			
		

> You're going off on a tangent here.



Only to a certain degree.


----------



## fanboy2000

woodelf said:
			
		

> Absolutely not true. What is unquestionably true is that a rules-heavy system gives more power to the rules,



Rules have no power by themselves. 

There is no unquestionably true statement you can make about people's hobbies, because there will always be someone for whom the statement is not true.


----------



## BryonD

woodelf said:
			
		

> Absolutely not true. What is unquestionably true is that a rules-heavy system gives more power to the rules, and thus less to the players (collectively--including the GM), while a rules-lite system gives more power to the players (collectively--including the GM) and reserves less for the rules. How the players' power is distributed between the GM and others is almost completely unrelated to how much power the ruleset has, at least theoretically. In practice, i don't think i've ever seen a really crunchy system that gave the non-GM players much power. All the games that i know of that give the players disproportionate power (more than the GM, that is) are also extremely rules-lite.
> 
> [And, to hopefully forestall arguments, i challenge the notion that D&D3E is player-enabling. All the players are expected to abide strictly by the rules. Only the GM is explicitly allowed to defy the rules, even if it is discouraged. So, there is nothing the players can do that the GM can't and there is something the GM can do that the players can't. Clearly, the GM has more power than the players. This is not necessarily the case in all RPGs--there are RPGs where all have equal "rights", and there are even those where the players at least occasionally have more power. In fact, i think i can dig up at least one RPG where the player has the lion's share of power.]





Man, that's just depressing.  
I feel sorry for anyone who's gaming experience has boxed them in to this conclusion.
Honestly.


----------



## Professor Phobos

Well, I'm partly happy I didn't see this thread until it had already gone on waaaay to long to read, and I'm kind of dissapointed.

In any event, as per the original claim, Dancey is full of crap, except for one point.

It can take just as long to create a character. At least for me, I tend to create them very carefully, so it can take just as long.

As for rules arguments, my god, I haven't had one in two years. I suppose I could be one of those very rare improvisational GMs, but I don't make up rules on the fly, and I'm not sure how lots of rules help you improvise situations any better. Most GM improvisation is coming up with responses to player action, not coming up with ways to adjudicate player action.


----------



## WizarDru

woodelf said:
			
		

> [And, to hopefully forestall arguments, i challenge the notion that D&D3E is player-enabling. All the players are expected to abide strictly by the rules. Only the GM is explicitly allowed to defy the rules, even if it is discouraged. So, there is nothing the players can do that the GM can't and there is something the GM can do that the players can't. Clearly, the GM has more power than the players. This is not necessarily the case in all RPGs--there are RPGs where all have equal "rights", and there are even those where the players at least occasionally have more power. In fact, i think i can dig up at least one RPG where the player has the lion's share of power.]




I'm not quite sure how challenging a notion is designed to forestall arguments, instead of incite them, but I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, either.

I think also that you're confusing player power with player control.  If the DM is designing the scenario, populating it with NPCs and establishing a plot, then I'm not sure he actually deserves the title 'DM', 'GM', 'Judge' or what have you.  If he is, then regardless of his "power" within the rules, he will always have much more power than a player can, because HE decides for the greater part when conflicts will take place and the environment it takes place in. 

None of which really much matters towards Dancey's original comments, IMHO.


----------



## SweeneyTodd

WizarDru said:
			
		

> None of which really much matters towards Dancey's original comments, IMHO.



Yeah. i think the topic more came up when some people said that they had played rules-light systems and their experience was so different from Dancy's study that they couldn't figure out where he was coming from, because their experiences involved faster play and didn't break out into constant rules disputes.. 

This led to, for reasons unknown to me, several pages of people arguing that that wasn't possible, because rules-light games were really just thinly disguised GM fiat. Those of us who'd played rules-light games and had a differing opinion tried to explain how that wasn't how they worked in practice, and much derailing and gnashing of teeth followed. 

It was messy; hopefully it won't start all over again.


----------



## Turjan

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> This led to, for reasons unknown to me, several pages of people arguing that that wasn't possible, because rules-light games were really just thinly disguised GM fiat. Those of us who'd played rules-light games and had a differing opinion tried to explain how that wasn't how they worked in practice, and much derailing and gnashing of teeth followed.



It was a whole lot of talking about apples (e.g., C&C) and oranges (e.g., HeroQuest), complicated by the fact that neither the apples nor the oranges existed at the time Ryan Dancey referred to . The same is true for D&D3x, which also did not exist at the time of the study .


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

SweeneyTodd said:
			
		

> This led to, for reasons unknown to me, several pages of people arguing that that wasn't possible, because rules-light games were really just thinly disguised GM fiat. Those of us who'd played rules-light games and had a differing opinion tried to explain how that wasn't how they worked in practice, and much derailing and gnashing of teeth followed.
> 
> It was messy; hopefully it won't start all over again.



I don't want to start it over again, but even in a game as you describe, I still see that it is either DM fiat or player fiat for more cooperative system.  That hasn't really changed my point of view, trying to run a game as described by you would be impossible with almost every gamer I have ever met.  I can only imagine that you got very lucky finding a group that can tolerate that sort of game.

Any time there isn't a rule for something, it is up to SOMEONE's fiat.  Either the player makes something up and the rest of the players at the table have to accept it or the DM does.  It "empowers" players because they have the freedom to make up what they want without a bunch of rules telling them they can't.  On the other hand, every time you give power to one person, you take it away from the others.

Essentially, there is a pool of power.  Contained in it is the power to decide everything that happens to every character and NPC in the game with every action.  If one player is making up what happens to an NPC, it takes the power to decide what happens to that NPC away from everyone else at the table.  They may be able to influence it in some system, but not actually control it.  If the rules say what happen in a situation, then it takes the power away from everyone else at the table, including the DM (unless the rules are ignored).

Even given all of that, it seems that the type of games you refer to are more collective story telling with a couple more guidelines than normal rather than a role playing game.  Generally the point of a RPG is to play one role and only have control over his actions within a world controlled by someone else.


----------



## woodelf

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I, as a DM, got annoyed at players continually coming up with new tactical maneuvers that I'd have to invent rules for. So, when I didn't allow them to do tactical maneuvers in order to speed up the game, battles became "I hit for 20" "He hits you for 13" "I hit him for 10".
> 
> Since I've been playing and running 3rd ed, my players have been happier, they love to explore the combat options. I find that combat holds their interest longer and there are less people leaving the room while waiting for their turn or wandering off to the bathroom and saying "you can just roll for me, I have +12 to hit and do 1d6+10 damage". My players feel their decisions are more important and there are more ways to show the personality of their character in their combat styles.
> 
> And since, likely 80% of the game is combat, the other 20% is role playing, making the combat portion more interesting is good, IMHO.




Well, partly that's a difference of playstyle: i'd go nuts if a game i was running or playing was 80% combat. Heck, i'd probably get bored [with the combat portions] if it was 20% combat. I wish *I* could leave the room when combat comes up--but i'm the GM. So, i agree with you that making combat more interesting is desirable--but the way to do that for me is to strip out all the rules. That way, people can do all the fun outrageous flashy clever things they want, without having to bog down combat by looking up or figuring out rules for them.

But, on to the substantive comments: what do you do now, when they want to do something the rules don't explicitly cover? Do you still not invent rules and therefore forbid any other actions?


----------



## SweeneyTodd

Majoru, we disagree on two things: How easy it is to get along with people in a group, and what the definition of a roleplaying game is. Convincing someone to change their mind on either point is probably impossible. 

For example, this:



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> On the other hand, every time you give power to one person, you take it away from the others.



I totally disagree with this. I wouldn't know how to begin debating it, though.


----------



## BryonD

nm!


----------



## Zudrak

Akrasia said:
			
		

> You're going off on a tangent here.




Akrasia, what's your sine?  How about cosine?


----------



## Turanil

BryonD said:
			
		

> nm!



*AGREED!!* 


By the way, do you think that?...


----------



## Silverleaf

Turjan said:
			
		

> It was a whole lot of talking about apples (e.g., C&C) and oranges (e.g., HeroQuest), complicated by the fact that neither the apples nor the oranges existed at the time Ryan Dancey referred to . The same is true for D&D3x, which also did not exist at the time of the study .




At least Basic D&D existed since 1977, even before the AD&D attrocity. 
Heck even the 3 little booklets from 1974 were quite lightweight.  There was the skeleton of a game in there, for those willing to dig it out.  Certainly it was freeform, with many subjects not addressed at all, and hence it put the ball squarely in the DM's hands to make things work.  That means rules-light in spirit, though the presentation was done with wargamers in mind, so it may not seem that way to someone used to today's fancy-schmancy artsy-fartsy games...


----------



## buzz

I gotta say, when I started this thread, I thought I was noting an obscure point and would see, ast best, light discussion. That we'd hit 27 pages in almost as many days is amazing, at least for ENWorld. I figured a "lite"/heavy argument would get a lot of play on certain toher forums, but not ENWorld, i.e., d20 ground zero. 

So... sorry!


----------



## Akrasia

buzz said:
			
		

> ... So... sorry!




No need to apologize.  This thread helped me put off doing actual work for at least two hours over the past couple of weeks.


----------



## Turjan

Silverleaf said:
			
		

> At least Basic D&D existed since 1977, even before the AD&D attrocity.



I know . I just wanted to point out that the study that Ryan Dancey's remark relied on did not include any of the games that were discussed in this thread . No D&D 3.x, no C&C, no HeroQuest.


----------



## buzz

Akrasia said:
			
		

> No need to apologize.  This thread helped me put off doing actual work for at least two hours over the past couple of weeks.



If only I could quote a similarly small number...


----------



## WSmith

mearls said:
			
		

> I think this thread does an excellent job of summarizing why the RPG business is so screwed up.
> 
> The really funny thing about rules light v. rules heavy is that it's an utterly empty proposition. The number of rules in a game, or the length of the book, have no bearing on its quality.




Exactly why the game industry is screwed up, eh?  :\ 

I am very disapointed in you Mike. Go to your Wizzo archive closet and find a Pink box containing a 64 page red book that was released in 1981 entitled "Dungeons & Dragons" Fantasy Adventure Game. That is one of the smallest page counts in RPG history, was supported for more than five years BTW, and one of the best role playing games ever created. Period.  Oh but it is not a complete game you say? Well find the powder blue box containing the blue Expert rulebook that goes along with it. You have one of the best RPGs ever created in 128 pages, with quality and playability that far exceeds any modern RPG put out today. 

I don't blame WotC really. If I were trying to feed my familiy I would want to produce a  rules heavy system, myself, so the profits from the sourcebooks keep coming in.  

Psion, good to see you haven't changed, either.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

WSmith said:
			
		

> I am very disapointed in you Mike. Go to your Wizzo archive closet and find a Pink box containing a 64 page red book that was released in 1981 entitled "Dungeons & Dragons" Fantasy Adventure Game. That is one of the smallest page counts in RPG history, was supported for more than five years BTW, and one of the best role playing games ever created. Period.  Oh but it is not a complete game you say? Well find the powder blue box containing the blue Expert rulebook that goes along with it. You have one of the best RPGs ever created in 128 pages, with quality and playability that far exceeds any modern RPG put out today.





Not to be disrespectful, but...so what? What you posted was simply a personal opinion. Mike was saying that quantity does not equal quality, and that arguing about it is pointless. That seems to be an entirely reasonable thing to say. Many people like rules light games, many - like me - enjoy more rules-heavy games. If I say "3e is better because it has more rules!', it would be as empty a statement as someone saying "_Game X_ is better because it has fewer rules!" I may enjoy rules-heavy games more, but that doesn't mean I think they are "better" in any objective qualitative sense. It would be impossible to do so, since the matter is entirely subjective, dealing with personal likes and dislikes. One's opinion is not objective fact...much to my chagrin.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum

I know I'm coming in late here, but I wanted to add something on Ryan's original point. To do so, let me take off my rpg small press publisher and freelancer hat (I certainly don't have Ryan's experience in either regard) and put on the hat I wear for the job that pays the bills: that of a veteran and current employee of the market research industry.

Ryan states:

_I observed (2-way mirror) several groups who were given "rules lite" RPG systems as a part of an effort to understand how they were used and if the "liteness" was actually delivering any utility value. Using a stopwatch, we found that consistently zero time was saved in character creation, or adjudicating disputes. In fact, in some games, disputes lasted substantially longer because the GM could not just point to a written rule in a book and call the argument closed._

What does this prove? Not much other than gamers like to argue about their dice rolls and characters. (I don't think any new research was needed into that point, but what the hell.) Why? Because we know anything about the people and how they were selected. What was the criteria for assembling these groups because without knowing this and assessing the inherent bias it lent to the experiment, the experiment is worthless.

-Did the gamers have previous experience with either system? This will definately lend to how quickly they would "fall in line" for a particular system rather than debating things.

-What were their preferred systems aside form those tested? If the gamers already prefer systems that are similar to, in terms of the amount of rules in the systems and their complexity, the "rules heavy" systems then there is a definate predisposition that spoils the results.

-How many of the people are usually GMs and how many are primarily players? I think we've all been around the game table long enough to know why this is important when discussing how long an arguement can go for.

-How old are the gamers? Gamers who grew up on only rules heavy systems may be more resistant to taking on the newer concept of rules lite. This is an assumption requiring its own study, of course, but is a valid concern in research--valid enough that age should be used as a cross-group control for comparison.

-How often do the people game? A person who considers himself a "dedicated" gamer could easily give a *MUCH* different opinion than a "caual" gamer because the latter, by merit of how often they game, are not as into the hobby and are more likely looking for some quick fun rather than dedicating time and memory to a lot of rules they use once a week/month/etc.

-EDIT: time of day. When were the groups conducted? If you're specifically looking at someone's degree of being arguementative, you have to account for the fact that you'll get different results at 5:30 than you will at 9 am or 9 pm, say; how someone's day shaped up, whether they're hungry, etc. goes a looooooooooooooooooooooong way towards tainting this sort of data, so you can't tell the difference between whether rules lite or rules heavy games cause more arguements in general or cause more arguements amongst people who have been at work all day and are hungry for their dinner.

Another point about these "time trial" results is rather simple: what about longitudinal results?

Sure, it is entirely likely that a "rules lite" system can lead to more arguements in the short term and make things longer when put under a stop watch in the immediate sense, especially if the previously mentioned terms are taken into consideration. However, if we asked one group to play nothing but the rules heavy game and the other nothing but the rules lite version for a month and then brought them back, would the results be the same? See, this experiment doesn't even so much as pretend to address the factor of acclimation -- meaning, it doesn't ask whether or not the rules lite system will allow for easier, faster game sessions once the players get used to how the rules run. This is, as any gamer (and publisher) knows, a *VERY* important nugget of information to leave out of any reliable study.

And finally, something that is perhaps the most telling point to make of all: research is a very tricky thing, especially when the research involves trying to recreate a social situation. Gaming is very much a social encounter wherein all hell can break loose if the personalities involved don't gel. Quite frankly, there's absolutely no way to tell if the results weren't a matter of opposite personalities butting heads if group preconstruction didn't occur. This could be entirely coincidental that this could happen more with the lite game groups, or it could mean that lite rules lead to more arguements amongst gamers with opposing personality types. It could also mean absolutely nothing. However, this variable cannot be discounted because I'm sure most of us have seen this around a gaming table to know that it is an important factor to consider, and is a factor that cannot easily be accounted for in such conditions unless all the people brought in were playing with their existing gaming groups.

Today's message:

Friends don't let friends pass off poor methodology as valid research.


----------



## Akrasia

Excellent post, Steve "Conan" Trustrum.


----------



## ColonelHardisson

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> research is a very tricky thing




It must be. No other game company ever tried such extensive research before. Given 3e's success, maybe more should.


----------



## The Shaman

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> It must be. No other game company ever tried such extensive research before. Given 3e's success, maybe more should.



Is 3e really that successful?

I'm not talking d20 generally, but third edition D&D specifically. What is the percentage of gamers out there playing D&D? I have a figure of 60% dating back to just before 3e was introduced - what is a current figure?


----------



## ColonelHardisson

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Is 3e really that successful?
> 
> I'm not talking d20 generally, but third edition D&D specifically. What is the percentage of gamers out there playing D&D? I have a figure of 60% dating back to just before 3e was introduced - what is a current figure?




I don't know about percentages, but given that WotC stands head and shoulders above every other RPG publisher in terms of earnings - orders of magnitude more successful, and also given that D&D is their main d20 product (d20 Modern is not as successful), it strikes me that D&D is, indeed, really successful.


----------



## The Shaman

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> I don't know about percentages, but given that WotC stands head and shoulders above every other RPG publisher in terms of earnings - orders of magnitude more successful, and also given that D&D is their main d20 product (d20 Modern is not as successful), it strikes me that D&D is, indeed, really successful.



I know they're moving a lot of product, but consider that I bought both 3.0 and 3.5 and now actually play neither, I'm much more interested in market share than units sold. Has D&D really moved beyond its audience from before 3.0 was introduced.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum

ColonelHardisson said:
			
		

> It must be. No other game company ever tried such extensive research before. Given 3e's success, maybe more should.



1) "Extensive" research doesn't count for much if it isn't done properly. Research that borders on social experimentation is one of the most difficult types of research to formulate properly, with product assessment being one of the easiest (in other words, organizing research where people look at a product and say why they think it looks better in blue than in pink is a lot easier than trying to recreate a complex social situation and get reliable results.)

2) Most of WotC's research is what's known as quantitative, which is the most common and most easily controlled type of research. Putting people in a room and asking them to recreate a social situation while you time them is known as qualitative research and is the most difficult to pull off properly. The much-referred to survey that gathered information on rpg use versus other games (among other things) is quantitative and has nothing to do with the focus groups Ryan first mentioned.

3) Most of WotC's research (that they've made public, anyway) is about rpgs in general and is not about 3e. This shows in the game. I think d20 is great, but there's nothing revolutionary about it except for the OGL. That has absolutely nothing to do with the game mechanics inside. And this ties right into point 4 ...

4) Make no mistake that 3e's popularity is largely attributed to two things a) the biggest case of brand recognition existing in the industry and b) the OGL. The kind of research Ryan is talking about in relation to this thread--that of game mechanic and design--has nothing to do with either of those factors.

Never confuse research brand tailoring and product design. The two types of research MUST be conducted under different conditions, in seperate trials, in order to be considered reliable because they necessarily approach the same product from two distinctly different perspectives.

I do, however, agree with you that the industry would benefit a hell of a lot from some good market research. Market research is, however, prohibitively expensive to everyone in the industry except the top two or maybe even three companies in industry. Proper research will easily eat the budget of a nice sized book that is given a print run sized in the expectation of good sales.

For example, a single focus group room runs about $1000 (minimum) for just an afternoon or morning at a reputable facility. Want it for the whole day? Well, let's tack on an extra $500, bringing it to $1500 USD/day.

Now you need to pay for recruiting. Cold calling people and asking for role-players is going to be a tough recruit, but we'll still conservatively price it at $60 a recruit. We could tack on advertising budget to try and get some gamers to call in to see if they qualify, but we'll keep it simple.

To get a good idea of the market, let's cover the following age ranges: 14 to 17, 18 to 24, 25 to 34 and 35+. Again, to keep things simple, we'll not worry about education, income, etc. and go for a wide spread. We cannot, however, dismiss gender. Because most gamers are male we'll only make one group all females to stir things up a bit. The rest will be an all male group and a gender mixed group for each age range, bringing us to a total of 8 focus groups, each at the industry standard of 2 hours in length. 

We'll also go for a typical group size, recruiting 12 people per group for 10 to show (meaning we over recruit so we have backups as there are typically no shows and we want to get as many full groups as possible.) 8 groups x 12 people (yes, you still have to pay the people who are sent home as overflow) means 96 people need to be recruited for the study.

Now we need to pay our people their incentive for coming to the focus groups. We'll use the industry standard of $50 a person for 2 hours of their time. 96 x $50 is $4800 in incentives. These 96 people also cost 96 x $60 to recruit, coming to $5760.

We could cram all 8 groups in a single day, but we'll go with what most research companies do for such a work load and spread it over 2 evening's (cramming it in can bias the results because the observers can become overloaded and bored, skewing what they perceive.) At 
$1000 an evening, that now comes to $2000 for the room. The cost of the room typically includes the hostess, on-site rescreening of the recruiting data, taping, etc.

Now there are also going to be incidentals. Researchers rarely want to have their respondents come in pissed off, and they don't starve their observers, so we'll tack on a conservative estimate of an additional $500/day for food, drinks, snacks, etc. for a total of $1000.

Okay, let's look at the numbers here, keeping in mind I'm using typical costs and not accounting for problems, such as tough recruiting (which may account for a necessary increase in the incentive, paying more per recruit, etc.) I'm also being very generous with the amount of groups; considering that because this reserach doesn't happen regularly there should definately be more groups to get good data a good researcher would try for more than just the 8 groups. They'd also try and spread them out geographically to see if the data varies from different parts of the country (well, the world because rpgs are a global product.) But, as I said, we're being generous here.

The total cost for our generously devised, hypothetical market research is $13,560. I think you can see why most rpg companies don't run focus groups.

Now, a stint of quantitative research can be done much cheaper -- mailing out and/or cold calling surveys generally costs less per respondent, but because the individual results aren't as telling and suffer from greater limitations a lot more people have to be contacted for useful results. You'd also have a hard time using such a study for gathering anything other than hard, cold statistical data, so comparing rules heavy to rules lite in pretty much any terms other than "which do you prefer" or "how often do you play rules heavy as opposed to lite" is almost entirely out of the question.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I know they're moving a lot of product, but consider that I bought both 3.0 and 3.5 and now actually play neither, I'm much more interested in market share than units sold. Has D&D really moved beyond its audience from before 3.0 was introduced.



d20 in general is the industry's largest group market share. Considering most people who play d20 merely shrug their shoulders, say "meh, why not?" and purchase the core books rather than printing the SRD and making up the holes, assuming the brand name DnD has a good hold on the market is a safe bet.


----------



## Staffan

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Is 3e really that successful?
> 
> I'm not talking d20 generally, but third edition D&D specifically. What is the percentage of gamers out there playing D&D? I have a figure of 60% dating back to just before 3e was introduced - what is a current figure?



I don't have any hard data. What I do have is a lot of people online who have said things like "I used to play AD&D, but I stopped for whatever reason and started playing other games instead. When they released 3rd ed, I started playing again," and the variant "I have played AD&D for a long time, but I didn't buy the 2nd ed stuff, but I did buy the 3rd ed stuff and converted." I seriously doubt that D&D has *lost* market share with the release of 3e.


----------



## The Shaman

Staffan said:
			
		

> I seriously doubt that D&D has *lost* market share with the release of 3e.



I don't think it's lost market share either - I'm just wondering how it relates presently to that 60% figure from before 3.0 hit the shelves. I'm guessing that it's gone up, but by how much I'm curious to know.







			
				Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> Considering most people who play d20 merely shrug their shoulders, say "meh, why not?" and purchase the core books rather than printing the SRD and making up the holes, assuming the brand name DnD has a good hold on the market is a safe bet.



Agreed - but I want numbers! Give me numbers!


----------



## WizarDru

Is it really in WotC's best interest to share those numbers, even if they had them?


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Is it really in WotC's best interest to share those numbers, even if they had them?



It really depends on what the numbers say. It can very easily work in the company's favor to provide numbers stating they are the biggest boy on the block and why. However, the numbers better be gathered and presented properly (or at least in such a way so that Average Joe won't notice anything amiss.) For example, while everyone is probably familiar with the survey results that WotC has previously released and will accept that data as fed to them, as someone in the business of market research I looked at the presented data and shook my head because concerns over their data gathering, analysis, and conclusions were jumping out at me in neon light.

So, it's not just about the data you release to the public but how you spin it.


----------



## Turjan

Charles Ryan dropped the number of a 75% market share for the RPG alone (not including minis and other side sales) last year, saying that this number came from a market research company that operated on their behalf. He added that he assumed that the numbers were slightly on the optimistic side .


----------



## eyebeams

Turjan said:
			
		

> Charles Ryan dropped the number of a 75% market share for the RPG alone (not including minis and other side sales) last year, saying that this number came from a market research company that operated on their behalf. He added that he assumed that the numbers were slightly on the optimistic side .




As far as I know, the only sources that claim that WotC has a marketshare of over 50% come from . . . WotC. The estimates I trust normally put them in the 45-50% range.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum

You have to keep in mind that how this information is gathered is sample polling rather than complete polling. This means that they aren't calling every gamer and getting the information (and boy wouldn't THAT be fun!) Instead, they call around to gamers and/or shops and take information from a small sample of the demographics they are surveying. They then take that data and say "well, we got 2000 replies and we figure there are probably 2,000,000 gamers in the US, so that means every reply will account for the trends of 1000 people' (that's a simplification of the process, but it gives you an idea.) Obviously, the larger the sample the more accurate your results--surveying two people and saying they each represent 1,000,000 people in the relevant market, for example, is not going to yield accurate data.

This is, of course, assuming all demographics are equal. Polling urban centers alone willl yield inaccurate results, as will only polling one part of the country. Budget also skews results because you may not spend the money on getting the sample you need, so you make do with what you can get. There are any number of things that can cause similar problems and,unfortunately, the client's employees in charge of research almost always don't understand those issues.

For example, I once fielded a project for one of North America's largest automotive manufacturers. I was managing the call centre at the time and was also in charge of how the call sample was acquired and fielded. The people heading up the project for the client simply didn't understand why we could easily fill their quota of mini-vans and SUVs when calling suburban areas but were having a hell of a time finding truck owners in those same areas. Likewise, when caliing numbers in the farmlands they didn't know why we could easily find people who owned trucks but were having a hard time finding people intending to buy compacts. I spent many hours trying to explain to these people--people who, working for the manufacturer, let alone their research department, should know this stuff--why fewer people own heavy-duty pickup trucks in the suburbs and why compacts/minis aren't common in the farmlands. These people were then responsible for taking the data we gathered and analysing it to prepare the report for their bosses. As you can imagine, these people likely drew a lot of false conclusions from the raw data and presented them as fact. This is pretty common in big companies because, as Ryan did, the people doing the analysis aren't experienced or trained enough with regards to research to recognize problems with their methodology.

EDIT: It's also worth nothing that you cannot make *ANY* accurate, statistical conclusions from qualitative research, such as Ryan conducted with the stop wathes. Why? Because you can't draw statistics from non-standardized surveying. His experiment was not standardized because each group consisted of different people being exposed to changing stimuli that wasn't the same for the other groups (in other words, the things the other participants said and did wasn't exactly the same for all the groups.) You can only draw accurate statistical conclusions from quantitative data where the questions are all standardized and not open-ended. (In other words, people are presenting you with facts and not opinions.) The only stats you can draw from qualitative work is that directly related to those groups, such as "4 out of 5 of the people in our 8 pm group didn't like X" but that data does not then transfer over to the general populace. It can only be used by the observers to make guesstimations.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> You have to keep in mind that how this information is gathered is sample polling rather than complete polling.




Egads - you mean they did it the same way *every other poll in the history of statistics has every been done*?  Say it ain't so!!!!


----------



## Turjan

eyebeams said:
			
		

> As far as I know, the only sources that claim that WotC has a marketshare of over 50% come from . . . WotC. The estimates I trust normally put them in the 45-50% range.



As I said, Charles Ryan himself added a caveat to this number and expected real numbers to be somewhat lower . The other accessible estimates come from - self-polled - game shop owners. The point is that D&D sells at least half of its game books outside of the traditional gaming outlets, and those don't contribute to any of the other statistics. Go to amazon and look at which books of which companies you find there (and their sales ranks) in order to get an idea what this means. Many smaller game companies have no access whatsoever to amazon or Borders sales systems. Even a company like Green Ronin got basically kicked out of that system by their recent distributor problems. That's why I assume D&D's market share to be considerably higher than estimated on basis of the game shop statistics.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Egads - you mean they did it the same way *every other poll in the history of statistics has every been done*?  Say it ain't so!!!!



You'd have a good point if that was true. I've conducted full demographic polling before where EVERY person in the target group was not only surveyed but responded. Not with large demographics, to be certain, but such polls do indeed exist. And, you know, you also kinda glossed over the many other issues in my post to erroneously target this ...

But you did illustrate my point for me very nicely: what Average Joe thinks he knows about market research often has little to do with how things actually work.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum

Turjan said:
			
		

> As I said, Charles Ryan himself added a caveat to this number and expected real numbers to be somewhat lower . The other accessible estimates come from - self-polled - game shop owners. The point is that D&D sells at least half of its game books outside of the traditional gaming outlets, and those don't contribute to any of the other statistics. Go to amazon and look at which books of which companies you find there (and their sales ranks) in order to get an idea what this means. Many smaller game companies have no access whatsoever to amazon or Borders sales systems. Even a company like Green Ronin got basically kicked out of that system by their recent distributor problems. That's why I assume D&D's market share to be considerably higher than estimated on basis of the game shop statistics.



It's also important to keep in mind that "market share" does not necessarily equal "popularity" or "most played." The market share only represents first sales and doesn't account for resales, dumping unwanted product in the bargain bin at your FLGS, trading for a more desired product, or simply leaving the book on a shelf, never to be played. Far too many people look at sales figures and jump to the conclusion that this also means everyone LOVES the product. While a safe conclusion to make, generally, it isn't always true.


----------



## The Shaman

I'm well aware of the limitations on the sales and market data and of Dancey's study of 2e gamers - we covered this many pages ago, but it certainly bears repeating, especially when it's done as throughly and eloquently as it is here.

That said, the reason I wanted to know about market share is in reference to a quote from an article about five years ago that says a marketing study conducted on behalf of WotC at that time "shows that D&D commands 60 percent of the table-based RPG market."

Comparing the figures quoted in that article with the figures reported by Charles Ryan (with his caveat considered), it means that after five years D&D still makes up about two-thirds of the market. That's certainly market dominance, but it also casts sales figures reported elsewhere in this thread in an interesting light - WotC's moving lots of product to be sure, but the overall proportion of the market hasn't changed tremendously, which suggests that the market is growing (which is no surprise) but that D&D's niche is relatively fixed.


----------



## WizarDru

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> EDIT: It's also worth nothing that you cannot make *ANY* accurate, statistical conclusions from qualitative research, such as Ryan conducted with the stop wathes. Why? Because you can't draw statistics from non-standardized surveying.




It's also worth noting we have no idea what testing was and was not done, unless something's changed since this thread went dormant.  Let's keep in mind, this was an off-hand comment on a discussion thread in someone's blog...not a press release or testimonial.  Dancey was tossing out a personal observation.  Charles Ryan tossed out the researched figure mentioned earlier, and while it's easy to discount that data, it's more than any other gaming company can lay claim to (for the handful of gaming companies that can even seriously consider spending the money FOR such a poll).

Since the default assumption seems to be that any research that WotC has done is both faulty and poorly done, I'm not sure I really see any reason for them to even bother revealing what data they do have.



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> Comparing the figures quoted in that article with the figures reported by Charles Ryan (with his caveat considered), it means that after five years D&D still makes up about two-thirds of the market. That's certainly market dominance, but it also casts sales figures reported elsewhere in this thread in an interesting light - WotC's moving lots of product to be sure, but the overall proportion of the market hasn't changed tremendously, which suggests that the market is growing (which is no surprise) but that D&D's niche is relatively fixed.




What if WotC is maintaining a consistent market share across a growing market?  That is to say, during 2e they had 60% of the market of 2 million gamers, while today they hold 60% of 4 million gamers (_Surgeon General's Warning: Numbers Pulled out of Nether Regions and have no basis in reality; attempting to use said numbers for anything other than a silly example have been shown to lead to....ummm.....bad stuff.  yeah.  Bad stuff._)...is that growth or not?

For that matter, it's kind of hard to identify that sort of thing, if no one's been watching the trend.  If Wotc was responsible for 90% of the RPG sales in 2001, due to the popularlity of the second printing of the PHB and continued return of players to 3.0...that certainly doesn't translate for 2002, when those books were no longer needed in such volumes.  Especially after costs rose from $19.99 and when people started dropping back out of D&D in the ensuing years.

And really, I don't consider D&D to be the Niche....everybody else is the Niche.


----------



## Turjan

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> It's also important to keep in mind that "market share" does not necessarily equal "popularity" or "most played." The market share only represents first sales and doesn't account for resales, dumping unwanted product in the bargain bin at your FLGS, trading for a more desired product, or simply leaving the book on a shelf, never to be played. Far too many people look at sales figures and jump to the conclusion that this also means everyone LOVES the product. While a safe conclusion to make, generally, it isn't always true.



Though your points are correct, they only become relevant if these aspects differ for different RPGs. Are there any hints that this is the case?

Even if you think these points are relevant, the result would probably be in favour for D&D. As it's easier to find players for D&D than for any other game, it most probably sees more play per sold copy than others. At least I know that this is true for my gaming library. I have no problem in finding players for D&D, but 'Dying Earth'?


----------



## The Shaman

WizarDru said:
			
		

> What if WotC is maintaining a consistent market share across a growing market?



That's what I think is happening, based on those figures.







			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> That is to say, during 2e they had 60% of the market of 2 million gamers, while today they hold 60% of 4 million gamers (_Surgeon General's Warning: Numbers Pulled out of Nether Regions and have no basis in reality...)_



_Not a bad guess, though - the article from 2000 said 1.5 million gamers in the U.S.







			
				WizarDru said:
			
		


			For that matter, it's kind of hard to identify that sort of thing, if no one's been watching the trend.
		
Click to expand...


Often business plans are written with a five-year goal, so the fluctuations during the intervening years get smoothed out and it become easier to evaluate the oveall results of the effort.

A 10% or 15% gain in market share isn't negligible, by any means, but is that what was projected by WotC when 3.0 was introduced? To me it seems that the hype is disproportionate to the actual results._


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum

WizarDru said:
			
		

> It's also worth noting we have no idea what testing was and was not done, unless something's changed since this thread went dormant.  Let's keep in mind, this was an off-hand comment on a discussion thread in someone's blog...not a press release or testimonial.  Dancey was tossing out a personal observation.



He was tossing out a personal observation from the role of someone who was there in the first place in the capacity of someone who was meant to draw a conclusion about the research that would then influence the product line. By the facts of his former position with WotC and the fact that he was there at the research, it was not just his personal observation. It was his professional observation.



			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> Since the default assumption seems to be that any research that WotC has done is both faulty and poorly done, I'm not sure I really see any reason for them to even bother revealing what data they do have.



I don't have to see the actual data. If we take Ryan at his word that this is how the study was conducted, any researcher worth his pay can see there are faults with the methodology. And yes, with WotC's previous press releases concerning their market research they did indeed reveal how the information was gathered and that methodology was also faulty for the conclusions they drew from it. I'm not saying ALL the research WotC has done is faulty, what I'm saying is that the instance Ryan discussed is about as worthwhile, from a researcher's perspective, as paying people to play rules heavy games and telling people who play rules lite games that you'll beat them and then claiming rules heavy is better because more people in the group wanted to play such games. The research, even just looking at what little Ryan revealed of it, isn't sufficient to the conclusions he made about what he saw. The same can also be said of their well-known survey results. Again, the data collected wasn't sufficient to make the conclusions they presented valid.

And taking this comment aside for a moment ...



			
				WizarDru said:
			
		

> Charles Ryan tossed out the researched figure mentioned earlier, and while it's easy to discount that data, it's more than any other gaming company can lay claim to (for the handful of gaming companies that can even seriously consider spending the money FOR such a poll).



The ability to spend money on research doesn't mean the results are accurate or the research was conducted properly. I've worked with some companies a lot larger than WotC (a few that are larger than Hasbro) and their "well planned" research projects were a joke. Everyone not involved in the process not working for the client knew it, but the client wouldn't hear anything else. So, saying WotC being able to spend money on research is "more than any other gaming company can lay claim to" doesn't say anything about their data, just their bottom line. In fact, in some instances I think people would be more than a little frightened if they learned how much some companies spend on researching the silliest of things only to not do the research properly in the first place because the client, who may know all there is to know about their product, won't listen to people who know more about market research than they.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum

Turjan said:
			
		

> Though your points are correct, they only become relevant if these aspects differ for different RPGs. Are there any hints that this is the case?
> 
> Even if you think these points are relevant, the result would probably be in favour for D&D. As it's easier to find players for D&D than for any other game, it most probably sees more play per sold copy than others. At least I know that this is true for my gaming library. I have no problem in finding players for D&D, but 'Dying Earth'?



DnD is such an extraordinary monster in the industry that what proves true for it very possibly doesn't prove true for many (or even most) other products.

DnD benefits from the fact that, aside from having the most money behind it, it is fun (in my opinion) and has the best brand recognition going. People that have never even seen a rpg product know what Dungeons and Dragons is. The same cannot be said for just about every other product there. Of course, when it comes to conducting market research and analysis based on anything other than hard sales data this can lead to problems because so many people say "Dungeons and Dragons" when referring to rpgs in general.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Not a bad guess, though - the article from 2000 said 1.5 million gamers in the U.S.



That's nothing more than a guess on their part, however. The truth is nobody has any idea how many gamers there are.


----------



## WizarDru

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> He was tossing out a personal observation from the role of someone who was there in the first place in the capacity of someone who was meant to draw a conclusion about the research that would then influence the product line.




Fair enough, but my point was that he was tossing it out as an anecdote only tangential to the discussion of lite-gaming systems, and I don't know how well thought out it was.  I'm sure it wasn't intended to withstand months of geek scrutiny. 



			
				Steven Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> research, even just looking at what little Ryan revealed of it, isn't sufficient to the conclusions he made about what he saw. The same can also be said of their well-known survey results. Again, the data collected wasn't sufficient to make the conclusions they presented valid.




Well, I can't argue either way about the validity of their data, but I'm certainly willing to accept that they looked to have the data validate their ideas, and entered into it, looking for the data to provide them the answer they already had decided upon.  I've certainly encountered that mindset at a certain Government Contractor who shall remain Nameless. 




			
				Steven Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> The ability to spend money on research doesn't mean the results are accurate or the research was conducted properly. I've worked with some companies a lot larger than WotC (a few that are larger than Hasbro) and their "well planned" research projects were a joke.




As I said, I concede the point.  What I was trying to point out, though, was that only a handful of companies in the RPG or games industry can even afford to do such research in the first place.  That certainly makes it difficult to do lots of comparisons or analyses, as I think we're seeing here.  

Here's a question: how important is it to have that data, for WotC or others?  Clearly, lack of this kind of information killed TSR...but that was one bad practice among many.  I mean, Green Ronin and Malhavoc keep in contact with their fan bases, for example, and their print runs are still tiny compared to WotC...do they gain enough benefit to care, from such research?  Is there an industry organization that has any strength and resources to do a more unbiased review?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> Not with large demographics, to be certain, but such polls do indeed exist.




And there you have it.

The only way a full-demographic poll works is if you're targeting a group of less than a hundred members or so.*

Seriously, though, are you just being obtuse, or do you not recognize hyperbole?  Calling their methods into question because they used the most widely-accepted method of polling is coming it a little high.

Joe Average?  I'm not here to compare resumes, bub.

* Beyond that, you're going to need some form of mandatory polling, and some serious weight to back up your desires.  For instance, you could probably (with some time) get a 100% sample rate out of a military unit.  It would be nigh-impossible in any "real world" application, however.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> And there you have it.



Yes, there indeed is the statement that refutes your claim. Please remember, you didn't qualify your assertation along the lines of "most commonly used" (although I have myself addressed this.) What you said was *every other poll in the history of statistics has every been done*. Now, this clearly isn't true. If you want to say that complete polling isn't common, you'd have a different point and I'd agree with you. That is not, however, at all what you said.



> The only way a full-demographic poll works is if you're targeting a group of less than a hundred members or so.*



Again, not true. As perhaps the most common example that comes to mind, we do a lot of medical research. We have found ourselves polling all of a given medical specialty in Canada. On occassion we get them 100% completed, although all come close because the specialists have a vested interest in answering. These polls are done with over 100 respondents. This is done by arranging in-office interviews, scheduling times to call rather than blanket calling, mailouts with a long window of returns, etc. EDIT: All these methods still use the same standardized, quantitative poll but recognize that just calling people up and hoping for the best won't get it done. Again, it's not common but it certainly does occur despite your claims to the contrary. It's not like we tell a client "what, you want to ask 101 people this survey? Well, I'm sorry, but the best we'll be able to do is get 100 replies for you." The greater the sample, the less the chance of a 100% return, but it *IS*possible.



> Seriously, though, are you just being obtuse, or do you not recognize hyperbole?  Calling their methods into question because they used the most widely-accepted method of polling is coming it a little high.



Obtuse? Actually, I'm being very direct.

You'll also note I'm not saying that it was their polling that comes into question (I don't have any information on their call plan to make that comment), so much as the conclusions they drew from it. There are some conclusions in there (such as the # of gamers in the US) that simply cannot be arrived at with accuracy from such a poll--certainly not one instance of such a poll. To even arrive at a reasonable estimate they would have to conduct a longitudinal poll of shifting demographics to see if patterns of consistency showed up throughout the various regions. Without doing so extrapolating a nationwide number is an guess the data simply can't support truthfully.



> Joe Average?  I'm not here to compare resumes, bub.



That much, sir, is obvious.



> It would be nigh-impossible in any "real world" application, however.



Say with, oh, I don't know, medical specialists?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> Yes, there indeed is the statement that refutes your claim. Please remember, you didn't qualify your assertation along the lines of "most commonly used" (although I have myself addressed this.) What you said was *every other poll in the history of statistics has every been done*.




In other words, you're having trouble with your English comprehension skills.  Specifically, you can't understand hyperbole.  That's ok - I'm sure your ex-English teachers will forgive you.



> We have found ourselves polling all of a given medical specialty in Canada. *On occassion* we get them 100% completed, although *all come close* because the specialists have *a vested interest in answering.* These polls are done with *over 100 respondents.*




I've highlighted the important parts, and reintroduced a statement I've already made:



> * Beyond that, you're going to need some form of mandatory polling, and some serious weight to back up your desires.




Unless I miss my guess, healthcare in Canada is socialized and is therefore, at least in part, state-run.  Would this be a correct statement?

So, what group size are we talking about here?  Larger than 100, you say, but then you also mention that you only occasionally get a 100% sample rate (and occasionally may mean "Once, like three years ago").

I'm currently party to a survey sent to 300 respondents (actually, three separate surveys sent to three groups of respondents of varying size).  Every respondent has a highly-vested interest in replying - the amount of money they'll be getting from the business who requested the survey is highly dependent upon their answers.  I will be shocked and amazed if anything like a 50% rate of return is achieved, even with the phone and e-mail follow-ups we have planned.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> In other words, you're having trouble with your English comprehension skills.  Specifically, you can't understand hyperbole.  That's ok - I'm sure your ex-English teachers will forgive you.



Something only counts as hyperbole if you can illustrate how you intend it to be an exaggeration. Your comments so far have done very little to convince me you are a competent researcher, so expecting me to think you're using hyperbole rather than speaking from lay knowledge (especially given the context in which you used it) is a leap that grants you more merit than your words warrant thus far.



> I've highlighted the important parts, and reintroduced a statement I've already made:



And, again, how did I suggest otherwise? You were talking in extremes and absolutes. I was not. If you want to account for exceptions--no matter how they are formed--please stop speaking in unqualified absolutes and then assume that you have already done so when called on it. You certainly have not done so, sir, unless you are again going to tell me the following unqualified statement is hyperbole: *The only way a full-demographic poll works is if you're targeting a group of less than a hundred members or so. If you did mean this to be taken at face value, I believe what you meant to say was The only way a GENERAL POPULATION full-demographic poll works is if you're targeting a group of less than a hundred members or so (which is an interesting concept in and of itself considering the idea of a survey targetting a sample of 100 that isn't going after a niche is rather odd, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt), but you did not say that, nor did you so much as suggest it. Please, do start saying what you mean rather than trying to add unspecified post-statement criteria to your points and my comments.

Honestly, you jump on one point in the post with what you claim is hyperbole, go back and add unspecified criteria to your comments afterward to skew my replies, and yet failed to address ANY of the other points about the research I made. So, instead of chipping away at one corner of the stone with your tiny hammer, how about addressing your expertise to the rest of the points I made with something other than claiming an observer at a market research focus group is only offering his "personal opinion," as though he were present in a social capacity, when he clearly is not. Please speak to the validity of the comments rather than excusing the points they address with a clearly apologetic and thin excuse.




			Unless I miss my guess, healthcare in Canada is socialized and is therefore, at least in part, state-run.  Would this be a correct statement?

So, what group size are we talking about here?  Larger than 100, you say, but then you also mention that you only occasionally get a 100% sample rate (and occasionally may mean "Once, like three years ago").
		
Click to expand...


Research participation isn't subsidized to the individual healthcare workers in Canada. Also, much of our healthcare research is for American pharmaceutical companies.

The size of the group depends on the specialty and how we contact them. A touch on behalf of Roche, for example, certainly won't garner the same response as a charity. Of course, if you're in research you'll know this already.

And, AGAIN, yes "occassionally" can indeed mean once in three years. It can mean once in a decade. But, as I've pointed out, I was not the one who put a time frame on how often this occurs. I merely stated that it CAN happen. I stated it was not impossible in spite of your claim otherwi... er, in spite of your "hyperbole." If you wish to, in hindsight, try to claim I made a claim to the contrary, I beg you to point it out so that I can apologize for the unclear communication of my point. If not, I once more suggest you stick to what you and I are both saying rather than adding imaginative implications to my words post hoc.




			I'm currently party to a survey sent to 300 respondents (actually, three separate surveys sent to three groups of respondents of varying size).  Every respondent has a highly-vested interest in replying - the amount of money they'll be getting from the business who requested the survey is highly dependent upon their answers.  I will be shocked and amazed if anything like a 50% rate of return is achieved, even with the phone and e-mail follow-ups we have planned.
		
Click to expand...


Perhaps you should farm the survey off to us, then. 

The first thing I'd point out to you and your client is that making the incentive varied to suit responses will automatically skew the data instead of offering a flat fee for qualified participation to represent an unbiased standard. An incentive is meant to be a flat payment for services rendered, not a reward for giving the "correct" answers--doing the latter is definately leading your respondent. But, seeing as how you are CLEARLY a market researcher I need not point that out to you ... Having dealt with that issue, I'm certain we could offer suggestions on getting your return rate up.

We both stray far from the mark, however. Do you have any suggestions on how WotC--indeed, any rpg company--could get reliable market research data at a cost most companies in this industry can afford?*


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> Something only counts as hyperbole if you can illustrate how you intend it to be an exaggeration.




And you haven't been able to pick up on that, yet?


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> And you haven't been able to pick up on that, yet?



Just waiting for you to act on it. In a textual communication medium like email or a messageboard, I realize that sarcasm and hyperbole cannot be taken for granted. Seeing as I've no history of communication with you by which to judge your responses and penchant for hindsight reconstruction, what basis do I have to take what you say for granted in any way other than literally?

Now, if you're _quite_ through petualantly trying to do the latter, why not address the other points I brought up? What about the requirement of longitudinal tracking? Better yet, what would you suggest to make market research more accessible to gaming companies without sacrificing quality? (In fact, this thread has got me thinking about this rather seriously.)


----------



## Turjan

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> The only way a full-demographic poll works is if you're targeting a group of less than a hundred members or so.*
> 
> * Beyond that, you're going to need some form of mandatory polling, and some serious weight to back up your desires.  For instance, you could probably (with some time) get a 100% sample rate out of a military unit.  It would be nigh-impossible in any "real world" application, however.



I had to take part in one mandatory poll in my home country. Goal was a full-demographic poll with 100% return. That were roughly 62 million poll participants. The way they did it, it was unavoidable for most people, and they also checked whether you wrote rubbish. That were a few more people than 100 .


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Turjan said:
			
		

> I had to take part in one mandatory poll in my home country.




Which is exactly the kind of enforcement I'm arguing is going to be required if you want a 100% return rate on any sizeable demographic.

EDIT: BTW, what is your home country, and what was the poll?  I'd imagine it was a Census of some form (which, at least in the US, uses the same system of extrapolation that "Conan" is disparaging).


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Ok, Conan.



			
				Conan said:
			
		

> You have to keep in mind that how this information is gathered is sample polling rather than complete polling.




In your professional opinion, as a market researcher, how much marketing research is done on a "sample polling" vs. "complete polling" basis?

And be honest.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Which is exactly the kind of enforcement I'm arguing is going to be required if you want a 100% return rate on any sizeable demographic.



And I won't argue that point for a large demographic, which is why I most certainly did not specify that we had done so with a "sizeable" poll. I merely said that we had done it, and later specified that it was with groups of more than 100. It really depends on the person's emotional or social investment, though, rather than cash -- if it's the latter you risk "buying" their answers rather than giving them an incentive.

With gamers, for example, I doubt you'd find any such investment to give you such a high return. I wager, though, that you'd likely get a good response if you offered free copies of product or gave store credit rather than cash alone. Still not 100% returns, but definately a tailored incentive that could work. If I was doing the quant that Ryan describes, however, I wouldn't give product as part of the incentive because that could bias the results along the lines of "we want you to participate in a study to see what is more efficient, rules heavy games like DnD or rules lite games such as Buffy. In exchange for your answers you'll get $40 and a free DnD book of your choice."


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Ok, Conan.
> 
> 
> 
> In your professional opinion, as a market researcher, how much marketing research is done on a "sample polling" vs. "complete polling" basis?
> 
> And be honest.



For general pop? None of the latter. In specialized fields still not a lot but returns can get very close if that's your goal. It really depends on what sort of resources you have available and what the client provides you, not to mention your purpose. For quant, sampling is still by far more common, but less so in qualitative (even though it's still in the majority.) I've never disputed that, though.

My point with WotC is that their sampling and polling instances is too little and too infrequent (one poll) to accurately arrive at many of their conclusions. My point wasn't that sample polling in general doesn't work.

If it was at all possible, I'd prefer to do complete polling all the time, though (as would any other researcher.) It's much easier to draw conclusions when you know you've talked to everyone in your target demographic rather than having to extrapolate. But that is, of course, impossible for the industry to survive on.


----------



## Turjan

nevermind...


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> For general pop? None of the latter. In specialized fields still not a lot but returns can get very close if that's your goal.




And there's your answer to, "What the heck did Patryn mean with his hyperbole?"


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> And there's your answer to, "What the heck did Patryn mean with his hyperbole?"



Do I really have to reiterate my comments on the validity of this assertation?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> Do I really have to reiterate my comments on the validity of this assertation?




Let me spell it out for you nice and slow, then.  

You're taking me to task because I said, in obvious, bolded hyperbole:



			
				Me said:
			
		

> Egads - you mean they did it the same way *every other poll in the history of statistics has every been done?* Say it ain't so!!!




I made this comment because, in your previous post, you started tossing around industry terms and anecdotal evidence to make it appear as if sample polling were some mysterious, voodoo process that's almost guaranteed to get sketchy results.

I pointed out, through hyperbole, that not only is sample polling a common and acceptable industry practice, it's also far and away the most common method of doing such research.

You agree with me about that, as is evidenced by your earlier post.  So what's your problem with my statement?


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I made this comment because, in your previous post, you started tossing around industry terms and anecdotal evidence to make it appear as if sample polling were some mysterious, voodoo process that's almost guaranteed to get sketchy results.



Actually, I stated VERY specifically as to why I thought that SPECIFIC studies WotC did were sketchy. When I used industry terms I even went through the bother of explaining them, so I hardly see how you can claim I was trying to obfuscate.



> So what's your problem with my statement?



Already covered in depth, I believe. I doubt repeating it again for you would add anything you've missed on all those other occassions.

Honestly, at this point either address the points themselves or just step back and stop playing the same tune. We've all seen you repeat the same things post after post. We're all still waiting for you to actually comment on the actual points made, though. Please do so or stop wading in the water while telling everyone how well you can swim.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Steve Conan Trustrum said:
			
		

> Actually, I stated VERY specifically as to why I thought that SPECIFIC studies WotC did were sketchy.




Without having seen a single one or the data thereby produced?

Tell me, what's next week's winning lottery numbers?


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Without having seen a single one or the data thereby produced?




Don't need to. You, as a researcher, should know that problems of methodology can be determined by looking at the results.

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/wotcdemo.html

For example, the information provided by WotC admits it didn't poll existing demographics (35+) and speculated about what those demographics would yield by generalizing the results. And then we have this nugget:



> Information from more than 65,000 people was gathered from a questionnaire
> sent to more than 20,000 households via a post card survey. This survey was
> used as a “screener” to create a general profile of the game playing
> population in the target age range, for the purposes of extrapolating trends
> to the general population.
> 
> This "screener" accurately represents the US population as a whole; it is a
> snapshot of the entire nation and is used to extrapolate trends from more
> focused surveys to the larger market.




Actually, we know the results are NOT a snapshot of the entire nation. We know it is grounds for a GUESSTIMATE. You don't find it at all odd that even their own analysis includes the statement 







> We know for certain that there are lots of gamers older than 35, especially for
> games like Dungeons & Dragons; however, we wanted to keep the study to a
> manageable size and profile. Perhaps in a few years a more detailed study
> will be done of the entire population.



  admitting they couldn't poll significant demographics, yet they then make conclusions that encapsulate those missing demographics?

Here's another big research no-no: 20,000 housholds yielded 65,000 results? So, more than 3 returns, on average, came from each household? Market Research 101: doubling up (never mind trebling) the individuals providing data from within the same household is going to introduce purchasing trends that are related to the household politics and economics rather than being representative of the market. For example, a household where three young kids send in the survey is likely to provide answers based on the fact that they have to spread around more money between them as opposed to a household spending money on just one kid. Considering the survey includes questions about how much the respondents spend on products in a month, all that data is definately tainted by improper sample separation.

The methodology explanation then goes on to explain that of the returns, 1000 were CHOSEN to participate for the end screener. Not "qualified" but CHOSEN. That means that people who were qualified through prescreening were then bypassed through a selection process. Their assertation to the contrary, subjectively choosing your end sample from a presample is NOT an accepted methodology for accurate quant or qualitative work. I truly hope that the wording is just a matter of poor choice and instead of "chosen", Ryan meant to say "qualified", but even then they are artificially winnowing the sample which directly repudiates their claims about how it relates to the overall gaming market--they are actually gaining information solely on the gaming market that fits whatever qualifications (if any) go the people in for the second survey.

Also, I shouldn't have to explain to you that 1,000 final screeners in a single, "blast" (meaning it doesn't take place over a period of time wherein results continue to come in to track changes over time) survey is hardly an accurate way to assess a national market, regardless of the industry.

Now we come to Section 3 of their data presentation. There are an awful lot of "millions of peopel play this" and "millions of people play that" for a single survey of 1000 people. If you're going to claim that each person in your sample represents several thousand people resulting in conclusions ranging in the millions, you'd better be using a much larger sample than that and you'd better be doing a longitudinal study; those are some pretty big claims to be making without tracking data (control groups, if you will) to compare to.

Now, we'll bypass most of their "exciting" conclusions because I've touched on most of the reasons why they are faulty and move right on to Section 4. Here we see another error in the data. They make a lot of claims about computer trends amongst gamers. Sorry, but no go. If you want to gather the information properly you don't just approach gamers and say "how many of you gamers do so and so on computers?" but you also have to approach people who play on computers and say "how many of you video game players also play role-playing games, CCGS, table-top games, etc.?" The way the data was gathered to gain these results is most definately skewed because it only approaches a two direction question from a single direction. To make their data gathered in this section at all relevant, their 1000 person sample should have been 500 of one and 500 of the other.

Hell, they don't even list an "other" rating for the multiple choice question. They even admit that the responses given were the only options allowed. That is VERY bad brand testing methodology. This was also a problem with the question concerning where the product was purchased--both "other" and "gift" (if you don't want to lump the latter into the former) were left off the list; while that may seem minor, it is, in fact, important.

And, if this "post card survey" is what I seem to remember it was--post cards included in product--then that is a biased method if they are trying to develop a general pop survey. You've already limited your sample to people purchasing WotC product instead of, say, having retailers insert it into every purchase, regardless of publisher, or mailing it out blindly. Again, if that was what they used (and, if IIRC, in the past people involved with the project have indeed stated that is what happened) all conclusions will be skewed. It's like saying the survey you can take when you register a computer game published by, say, EA Sports will give you an accurate account of video game players throughout America. Not it won't. At best it can give you information on people who buy games from EA Sports because the data was not gathered through other product suppliers. If this wasn't how the cards were distributed, I'd like to hear how they were (most likely a blind mailing.)


----------



## Mark CMG

_I now declare this "lite" thread officially "heavy"..._


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> _I now declare this "lite" thread officially "heavy"..._



He's not heavy, he's my market research brother ...


----------



## pickin_grinnin

buzz said:


> 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.




I don't think they are easier or faster.  I think they are often more flexible, though, and tend to focus more on the roleplaying than the mechanics.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hobo said:


> While somewhat interesting as an observation, I really have to wonder what that has to do with most groups out there who normally play rules lite games.
> 
> Rather than giving rules lite games to various random focus groups of gamers, they would need to study folks who regularly play rules lite games to make such a sweeping pronouncement of their utility.





This. I play both light and heavy games. When we play lite systems, it's faster. Period. Part of that is we are used to running lite games and lean on making rapid rulings over looking stuff up. I like heavy games too but there is no doubt in my mind, if you play a truly lite game and embrace the play style, it is faster. Like everything there is a cost though. With heavier games you are going to get more consistency for example.


----------



## buzz

Holy necromancy, Batman!


----------



## WizarDru

RISE FROM YOUR GRAVE!!!


----------



## amerigoV

The thread should be 'lite-er" since its decomposed a bit.


----------



## Steve Conan Trustrum

Oddly, Mark just gave  me XP off this thread 8 years later


----------



## Teataine

Oh great, a 9 year old reminder to never listen to anything Ryan Dancey says.


----------



## Mark CMG

Steve Conan Trustrum said:


> Oddly, Mark just gave  me XP off this thread 8 years later





Aged wisdom?


----------



## FoolishFrost

Are we commenting on this thread, or mocking it?  I'm good either way...

<polishes the visible bones in its corpse>

I mean, honestly, I myself never wanted a rules-lite game.  We want a rules consistent game.  Mutants and Masterminds seems to have been filling that role nicely for a bit now.


----------

