Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?

[jknevitt]

I'm on a gaming speed bender at the moment. I'm trying to squeeze that last ounce of fast play out of any system I get my hands on. I want to get those search and handling times down to the smallest they can be.

I'm trying to find that perfect combination of system density and system scope that will yield the fastest play possible.

My two questions to the class are:

* Does rules-light equal speed of play?
* In your experience, is diceless faster or slower than dice?

[jdagna]

I think the main speed factor depends on how much gets done per unit of action, so rules-light games aren't necessarily faster.

For example, D&D requires several rolls on every single attack, and each attack is relatively unimportant (you need lots of attacks to kill most enemies).  It's a pretty small unit of action.

On the other hand, a game like Trollbabe can use a single set of rolls (up to three) to resolve an entire conflict (combat or otherwise).  Once the conflict has been resolved, people describe those results and move on to the next scene.  This is a pretty big unit of action.

Now, there are a variety of diceless mechanics (from GM fiat to bidding systems) and they all vary in speed, but it's my feeling that most of them are slower than most dice mechanics per unit of action.  Diceless games usually make up for this by having larger units of action.

[John Kim]

My two questions to the class are:
* Does rules-light equal speed of play?
* In your experience, is diceless faster or slower than dice?

Well, the answer depends on many factors.  

I find that in many cases, either GM or player decision-making is the limiting step for speed of play.  If a rules-lite system frequently calls for difficult judgement calls, then it can be slower than a rules-heavy system which has definite/quick-to-judge results.  For example, at one point we went from playing a martial-arts genre game using the HERO System to a similar game using Theatrix.  In Theatrix, the GM strongly encouraged players to make up descriptive moves each round ("Foundation Strike!").  The result was that combat actually slowed down as each round had a long lag on the player and then a long lag on the GM.  

Slow-down for judgement calls can occur in a great many rules-light systems.  i.e. "OK, what does the 'Drowning in Armor' card mean for a poker game?"  or  "Does my 'Crafty Plains Hunter' trait let me boost my 'Scout' trait if I'm in a forest?"  etc.  

So overall, I think that rules-light generally helps speed of play up to a point.  However, once you're at the point where the rules are more-or-less internalized by the players (i.e. no page-flipping during resolution), then further rules-lightness doesn't help that much.  Also, as Justin mentions, the unit of action can vary widely.  For example, you can resolve a battle with hundreds of characters on either side in a handful of rolls using the mass combat system like that in, say, GURPS.  But you also get correspondingly less detail.

[Marco]

I think John is on the money. Another point:

In (many) traditional games the time the rules are used in play (mainly) is during combat. GURPS is as rules-light as Over The Edge when it comes to resolution mechanic (roll some dice and check against a TN). The various D20 games add a lot of modifiers in some circumstances but, again, Hero is just a roll vs. a skill when you make, say, a computer skill roll.

Handling time will depend on factors like the player's speed of adding dice, how many dice are rolled, and whether, for dice-pools, TN varies with difficulty (for example, because it makes knowing if a dice is a success a little harder).

If the game is "low combat" then many games considered rules-heavy (Palladium) will just come down to a simple percentile check against a known value once in a while.

Secondly: the biggest factor for combat speed, IME, isn't number of rules but learning curve. A game like Over The Edge or The Window will have a much shorter learning curve than D&D 3rd with lots of feats in play. But once you know it all and can recall it quickly the handling time is (IME, usually) reduced to number of physical rolls per player--not rules complexity.

So while GURPS may require 1 or 2 more rolls (due to block and HT roll) than a system which is just to-hit and damage check, the actual time-factor is pretty similar if the TN's are known.

Note: for our project we did some timing experiments and hit upon the (fairly obvious) observation that transactions between participants take longer than if there isn't one. That means that if you have to ask the GM for a difficulty level then you spend longer than if you're rolling vs. a known number and just call out "I made it" or "I missed it." The timing difference was low, but it was there in real play when the GM was, for example, marking down some damage while the player was waiting to proceed.

IME.

In other words, for proficient players the speed difference is, IMO, pretty low if all that's involved is mechanics (deep tactical systems and indecisive players are another factor, yes--but that can happen even in a light system).

-Marco

[jknevitt]

Aha!

So one could argue that the time spent interacting with another re: mechanics is a big factor.

How does one reduce that time while still allowing enough information transaction to take place? Simplification of the information being exchanged would be the logical solution. This in turn would suggest rules-light.

Learning curve also matters, as stated above. Even if you have an arguably rules-heavy system (d20), if you've played it for a while it gets to be quite fast in play.

Knowledge of system x information transaction = 1/speed of play?

[Marco]

Aha!

So one could argue that the time spent interacting with another re: mechanics is a big factor.

How does one reduce that time while still allowing enough information transaction to take place? Simplification of the information being exchanged would be the logical solution. This in turn would suggest rules-light.

Learning curve also matters, as stated above. Even if you have an arguably rules-heavy system (d20), if you've played it for a while it gets to be quite fast in play.

Knowledge of system x information transaction = 1/speed of play?

I think most data that is transferred is simply a Target Number or maybe a result check. That data is simple--the game may not be.

For example:
Player: "I swing at his head. I'm using Broadsword. What's his Def Factor?"
GM: "15"
Player: "I roll a 17. I connect."

vs.

Player: "I roll broadsword. I get a success--that means I hit."

In this (simplified) case, the data the GM respnds with is just a simple number. It's the time for the transaction that is important. Even if the GM knows the number instantly, if the GM is involved with someone else or something else, play is slowed.*

-Marco
* The player can, of course, roll and declare first--but the GM still has to validate (in this hypothetical there is no real likelyhood of negative modifier for the second, simpler, system). Also: IME players often like to know the odds of success before they roll.

[Alan]

Hi James,

Justin's "unit of action" determines the ratio of fantasy activity to real activity.  John gave a good description of a shift in this ratio.  Incidentally, Theatrix rules says its "rounds" can have a different scale in each conflict.  I've never played it, but have seen this effect in Trollbabe.  One conflict might be a series of blows, and another, of moments in an hour-long debate (theoretically even a months long war) all processed in one to five rolls of a 1d10.  

If I say I don't think Trollbabe is rules-light, I don't think that will communicate much.  Previous threads have tried to clarify what rules-light and rules-heavy mean.  General agreement here is that they are pretty vague terms.  It might be more useful to use some Forge terms.  "Points of Contact" and "Handling Time" are preferred - see Ron's provisional glossary ( http://indie-rpgs.com/_articles/glossary.html ).

Handling time is the actual physical time it takes to interpret a rule consult - reading dice or looking on a table, for example.

Points of contact refers to how often the system must be consulted per unit of action.  In Narrativism without Pervy Mechanics? Ron proposes that this includes both consulting existing rules, _and_ consulting the system by which new rules are made.  In Pervy & Points of Contact, I suggested we might better make a distinction, breaking the concept into two: points of contact [with existing rules], and points of negotiation [to create new rules].

I would say that Trollbabe play has moderate points of contact ( actual play often consults existing rules ), but low points of negotiation ( _how_ to make most additions to the shared fantasy is well-defined), and, especially, low handling time (rolls and rules are easy and quick to apply).

I suggest that handling time and points of negotiation are key factors in determining how "quickly" a game plays.  A game with high points of contact, but low handling time for each contact, may have a lot of rules, but can snap along.

So ultimately, a preferrence for "rules-light" or "rules-heavy" may be a preference for a combination of settings of these three things, but not necessarily the same combination as that of someone else who expresses the same preference.

For example, one person's "Rules-light" might refer to low points of contact, and high points of negotation.  This isn't necessarily bad, it's a matter of taste: this player may like the possibility of processing each proposal in a unique way within the context of the moment.  With this kind of ruleset, players often have to pause to decide how to process a proposed addition to the fantasy, because a rule doesn't already exist.  This can add time to play.  

Does "Rules-Light" Equal Speed of Play?

It depends on what you mean by rules-light.

[Kensan_Oni]

By far, I find that it's not the rules that result in speed of play.

By far, the factor that slows down play in a game is indescisivness. While rules light games have an advantage of not needing to look up a spell or a special ability, that matters very little when a player is going ummm for fifteen minutes trying to think of something useful.

Nore does it help when you have five conversations happening around the table as freinds talk to each other, like they are going to when they gather after a week of being away.

To be honest, even the longest system for resolotion, Rulemaster, can be immensily speed up if the players can mantain focus and decide quickly what they want to do. Game mechanics have very little influnce over these factors unless you happen to be playing a LARP... and even then, there is a slight slowdown.

I really don't think the amount of rules a system has matter towards speed after the first few sessions.

[ffilz]

Hmm, one problem is just what do you really mean by speed of play. I could have a very detailed combat system that could have very little handling time so it feels like it's fast, taking only a minute or so per player action, but it takes 4 hours to resolve a simple duel. To one player, this is a fast system, to another player it's a slow system. The first player wanted the detailed combat, and was satisfied. The second player didn't want to spend 4 hours resolving combat. Meanwhile, the next week in a different game, the second player is trying to sneak the PCs into a city with everyone hiding in the hay. It takes 15 minutes for the GM to resolve the interraction with the city guard. The 2nd player thinks things went pretty well here because he got to use several different applicable skills, plus talk in character, however he wishes the skill rolls didn't take so long to resolve (the GM had to look several things up). The first player starts whining about the game bogging down because of all the talk. Which system is "faster"?

So there are two factors. How long does it take to resolve a single unit of action, and how long does it take to resolve a single conflict. But it's not quite that simple because it also depends on what a single unit of action covers, and what a single conflict is. And all of these depend on the rules, player familiarity with the rules, player ability to perform the mechanics (roll dice and add, find numbers on a table, whatever), and player interests. And then the players go and modify the rules, either intentionally or unintentionally.

Frank

[John Kim]

I would say that Trollbabe play has moderate points of contact ( actual play often consults existing rules ), but low points of negotiation ( _how_ to make most additions to the shared fantasy is well-defined), and, especially, low handling time (rolls and rules are easy and quick to apply).

I suggest that handling time and points of negotiation are key factors in determining how "quickly" a game plays.  A game with high points of contact, but low handling time for each contact, may have a lot of rules, but can snap along.

Well, the "points of contact" idea here basically matches Marco's idea of learning curve -- i.e. the complexity or involvement of the mechanics is not very important after a successful learning period.  So, for example, when I played a steady diet of HERO System games with HERO System veteran players, it went pretty smoothly and the limiting factor was in the operations of rolling and counting up dice and so forth.  

On the other hand, I think your "points of negotiation" doesn't seem to capture my and Kensan's ideas about decision time.  In my experience, it is individual decision which is often critical.  i.e. For example, I would say that Soap also has low points of negotiation and handling time.  But in my experience of play, it wasn't challenges or bidding which slowed things down, it was players who had trouble deciding what to narrate.  

I have a caveat about points of contact / learning curve, though.  In some more recent groups, I find that the learning curve is terrible.  People will forget rules as well as learn them, and it often seems like two steps forward, one step back.  Maybe it's a general difference of attitude towards the rules, or just players with less free time on their hands to memorize rules.  But I find myself pushing towards simpler systems because of this.

[Alan]

On the other hand, I think your "points of negotiation" doesn't seem to capture my and Kensan's ideas about decision time.

It wasn't intended to.  It's a separate issue.  Decision time is part of scale: how long each player is allowed to deliberate per unit of decision.

[Vaxalon]

It has been my experience that a quick game only happens when all of the participants are committed to that endeavor.  If there's anyone there who wants to sit back and consider every move, then the game will slow down... any other obstacle to speed can be overcome by committed participants.

[John Kim]

On the other hand, I think your "points of negotiation" doesn't seem to capture my and Kensan's ideas about decision time.

It wasn't intended to.  It's a separate issue.  Decision time is part of scale: how long each player is allowed to deliberate per unit of decision.

Let me phrase that another way.  You cited handling time and points of negotiation as key factors in speed of play.  I was just saying that decision time is just as important -- if not more important -- for speed of play.  

As a side point, I find your phrasing there a little strange, but maybe that's a difference in experience (?).  In my groups, "how long is allowed" never comes up.  We never skip a player's turn or clock her as being out of time.  For me, the key for decision time is how much guidance and/or restrictions there are in the rules.  For example, if you have 20 combat maneuvers each with 3 stances to choose from, that takes longer to decide than if you just have to choose to attack or not.  Similarly, if you can narrate anything happening anywhere in the world (i.e. Soap), that is more difficult than if you have to decide what your character does next.  

Also, I agree with Vaxalon that commitment to fast play is key -- but system still affects this.  i.e. For the same players with the same level of commitment, they may be faster with one system than with another.

[Vaxalon]

In my groups, "how long is allowed" never comes up. We never skip a player's turn or clock her as being out of time.

Agreeing to limit decision time is one of the things that a group can do, as a matter of social contract/house rule in order to speed up play.

DnD has an initiative mechanic called "Delay"... Under normal circumstances, it's done tactically, to wait until proper preparations have been made, so that your chosen action has the maximum effect.  In games where speed is an issue, the Delay action is imposed on a character by the DM when his player is being too indecisive for a six-second combat round.

For the same players with the same level of commitment, they may be faster with one system than with another.

This has not been my expeirence.

[Callan S.]

Isn't this thread getting a little distracted by the idea that if players just hurry up with their turn, system doesn't matter (matter in terms of how quickly its use produces results)?