Topic: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
Started by: jknevitt
Started on: 12/8/2004
Board: RPG Theory
On 12/8/2004 at 3:43am, jknevitt wrote:
Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
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?
On 12/8/2004 at 5:37am, jdagna wrote:
RE: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
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.
On 12/8/2004 at 9:00am, John Kim wrote:
Re: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
jknevitt wrote: 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.
On 12/8/2004 at 11:21am, Marco wrote:
RE: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
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
On 12/8/2004 at 3:57pm, jknevitt wrote:
RE: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
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?
On 12/8/2004 at 4:11pm, Marco wrote:
RE: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
jknevitt wrote: 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.
On 12/8/2004 at 4:41pm, Alan wrote:
RE: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
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.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 11600
Topic 11607
On 12/8/2004 at 5:28pm, Kensan_Oni wrote:
Well... maybe it's not the rules...
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.
On 12/8/2004 at 6:55pm, ffilz wrote:
RE: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
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
On 12/8/2004 at 7:18pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
Alan wrote: 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.
On 12/8/2004 at 7:24pm, Alan wrote:
RE: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
John Kim wrote: 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.
On 12/8/2004 at 7:34pm, Vaxalon wrote:
RE: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
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.
On 12/8/2004 at 7:45pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
Alan wrote:John Kim wrote: 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.
On 12/8/2004 at 7:52pm, Vaxalon wrote:
RE: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
John Kim wrote: 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.
John Kim wrote: 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.
On 12/9/2004 at 3:24am, Noon wrote:
RE: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
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)?
On 12/9/2004 at 3:45am, jknevitt wrote:
RE: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
Noon wrote: 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)?
You can never regulate the speed at which players communicate with one another. There is no shot-clock in roleplaying. What you can do is regulate the system. It's not a matter of a player's "speed of turn", as I see it, it's a matter of information acquisition by a player and a matter of information compression.
If a player can "get" something easily, and can relay required information in a more efficient manner, then we have an increased speed of play. You can manage this with the system. It's all a matter of process control.
On 12/9/2004 at 10:35am, GB Steve wrote:
RE: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
The quickest games to play for me in decreasing order of speed are:
Rules free (just GM/player fiat)
Diceless GURPS (pretty much as above)
Amber
oCtane
OtE
Dying Earth (if you don't use trumping)
HeroQuest (most of the time)
GURPS (akthough G4 is currently slower as we introduce new people)
d20
HeroQuest (when there are interpretation difficulties)
Rolemaster
Dying Earth (if you use all the rules)
RQ3
So yes, diceless has been quicker. I've always found that I need much more material when there are less dice rolls. Combat is what slows things down usually.
On 12/9/2004 at 3:53pm, Alan wrote:
RE: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
Hi all,
Isn't the time a player is allowed to make a decision or to discuss with other players an issue of Social Contract? We may never discuss it directly, nor enforce it explicitly, but I think each group develops some standard for this unit of time in a kind of tacit negotiation. The standrad can be renegotiated for each new game system, for periods of learning new system, and there seem to be rules for when a player can take extra time. Remember social contract doesn't mean it has to be written down, or even consciously agreed on.
We might isolate the concept of unfocused play: this happens because the player's attention is not being held by the game. There's many reasons for that, not all having to do with the game design and execution.
Since the Forge is a game design forum, why don't we focus on what we can control when designing and running a game?
Design Elements that Affect "Speed of Play":
1. Scale of events - how much fantasy action does one execution of real world process address?
2. Points of Contact - how often must rules be consulted while processing a unit of event for the fantasy world.
3. Points of Negotiation - how wide is the scope of existing rules? How often will they lead to discussions about _how_ to decide something in actual play.
4. Handling time. How involved is real world application of the rules?
5. Teachable presentation of rules. Play aids, text presentation, etc.
Actual Play Elements:
1. Choosing players who are interested in what will be run. (Both in content and creative agenda.)
2. Social contract agreesments on time allowed for decisions.
3. Group familiarity with rules.
4. Effective group facilitiation, usually by GM.
If I were asked my major beef about most rpgs, especially the glossy ones like DnD and WoD, I would say it's lack of teachable presentation. For some reason, there's an accepted tradition among those circles that arcane and obscure is the same as atmospheric. I don't think these are good examples to follow.
One element that is often lacking from many rpgs is teachable presentation. Even big lines, like DnD and WoD, obscure rules with presentation of "atmosphere."
On 12/9/2004 at 5:19pm, jknevitt wrote:
RE: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
Alan wrote: Since the Forge is a game design forum, why don't we focus on what we can control when designing and running a game?
What an excellent idea!
Design Elements that Affect "Speed of Play":
1. Scale of events - how much fantasy action does one execution of real world process address?
2. Points of Contact - how often must rules be consulted while processing a unit of event for the fantasy world.
3. Points of Negotiation - how wide is the scope of existing rules? How often will they lead to discussions about _how_ to decide something in actual play.
4. Handling time. How involved is real world application of the rules?
5. Teachable presentation of rules. Play aids, text presentation, etc.
1. One could assume that there will be more real world processes/units of time expended if the subsequent units of "fantasy action" are small. This is a matter of action scope, yes? In other words, "how much do I resolve/do in one action?" The issue is not how fast in-game action moves, it is how fast the action of the game itself moves -- how fast interplay between players takes place. If you are communicating small amounts of information many times (those small units of fantasy action), this will take longer than communicating large amounts of information few times. Of course, I'm an advocate of efficiency and information compression in roleplaying communication, regardless of the information amount being communicated.
2. Points of Contact (PoC, because I'm a lazy typer) can be significantly reduced if players are familiar with the system. If a system exists that has a relatively small PoC learning curve, ie. the PoCs for a learner and the PoCs for a long-time player are similar -- and low overall, this could dramatically affect the overall issue of speed.
3. This is an issue of "does the system do one thing well?" or "does the system do many things ordinarily?". If the former, players understand that there are few methods in which to get things done. If the latter, players will spend more time deciding what an action will be and how that action will be undertaken.
4. Again, back to my comment about information compression. If you can put enough data into a single unit of communication effectively, handling time will go down simply because you're saying every relevant piece of information at once. This in part is a matter for players. Learners tend to disperse their information communication as they get a feel for the game. If a system exists that even as learners the information is transmitted efficiently, handling times go down for everyone (because if you're efficient as a learner, the odds are you'll be more efficient as a long time player).
5. This is a big issue. Many games often put pertinent rules or system elements in large blocks of text where they are easily missed. If a system can be explained in clear, simple, precise terms with ample aids, then some ground can be gained. Like I always say to people trying to explain something to me: "Tell me like I'm a three-year-old" -- that way I know I'll get it.
Actual Play Elements:
1. Choosing players who are interested in what will be run. (Both in content and creative agenda.)
2. Social contract agreesments on time allowed for decisions.
3. Group familiarity with rules.
4. Effective group facilitiation, usually by GM.
1. This is a given. If someone's not interested, the more time they will goof off during a game or do stuff not related to a game. This increases their own Points of Contact and Handling Times.
2. It's like that old saying "you can't legislate faith". Decision-making time is not something that can be legislated by the system. That's purely a player issue. However, and I hate to sound like a broken record, if efficiency and speed of play is increased from within the system, decision-making time in general will go down (unless of course, the above is an issue).
3. See my first #2 and first #4, above on my thoughts. Rules knowledge goes up, Points of Contact go down. QED.
4. Aha! If the GM can't clearly act as a facilitator of the system and the setting, and as a communicator between players, then there's a principal cause of lag in the system. This is fairly self-evident, I think: a good GM gets a game going better than a bad GM. This then gets into the issue of player satisfaction and speed of play. a happy player will be more efficient, simply due to my second #1, above.
Yes, I basically rehashed everything that's already been said, but I felt your points needed a reply. :D
On 12/9/2004 at 6:30pm, ffilz wrote:
RE: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
1. One could assume that there will be more real world processes/units of time expended if the subsequent units of "fantasy action" are small. This is a matter of action scope, yes? In other words, "how much do I resolve/do in one action?" The issue is not how fast in-game action moves, it is how fast the action of the game itself moves -- how fast interplay between players takes place. If you are communicating small amounts of information many times (those small units of fantasy action), this will take longer than communicating large amounts of information few times. Of course, I'm an advocate of efficiency and information compression in roleplaying communication, regardless of the information amount being communicated.
This is certainly true, but it is modified by what the expected scope of the game is. This problem is partially out of the designers control, but what the designer can do is set expectations. If your game is about playing through the history of several generations of a family, it's probably not a good idea to have a blow by blow combat system (unless that system is only used to resolve duels that wind up in history books). On the other hand, if the game is about defeating the dragon that has been ravaging the countryside, you probably want some detail in the combat system.
Perhaps it boils down to simply: A "fast" system is one in which all the rules (and their associated proceedures) are relevant to the goal of the game with a meaningful impact. Note that meaningful impact does not necessarily mean that it actually had any effect on the final attainment of the goal, it may just mean that the players decisions are confirmed by the game. "I cast cool spell #657 and I totally wasted the dragon!" Never mind that had the player cast any cool spell between #300 and #700 that he would have totally wasted the dragon. What was important was that the player felt his decision to cast #657 was meaningful and resulted in victory.
Frank
On 12/9/2004 at 7:15pm, neelk wrote:
RE: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
jknevitt wrote: You can never regulate the speed at which players communicate with one another. There is no shot-clock in roleplaying. What you can do is regulate the system. It's not a matter of a player's "speed of turn", as I see it, it's a matter of information acquisition by a player and a matter of information compression.
Actually, there can be -- I use a kitchen timer to regulate how long a scene will run, and played in a D&D game in which the GM gave us ten seconds to decide what to do each turn of a combat situation. Both of these worked very well, and made for much happier players.
The reason these techniques worked is because taking either a short or a long time to make a decision is self-reinforcing. If everyone takes a long time to make a decision, then the players don't get to make them very often and so they become rarer and more important, which means they take longer to carefully decide. If everyone is deciding quickly, on the other hand, you'll get to make decisions more often, and so you don't need to take a long time because you'll get another opportunity to make a decision soon enough, and can correct.
On 12/10/2004 at 1:10am, ssfsx17 wrote:
RE: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
I have personally found that most of my time is spent looking at a variety of different sheets, numbers, tables, and dice and trying to think of how they all work with the system. Thus, a system with "intuitive" rules (that is, a system in which there are no tables or curves) tends to go faster for me. Even a monster like BattleTech becomes much faster to play when the computer does everything for you (like with MegaMek).
Total subjectivity is not necessarily faster, although it is definitely faster than all of the big-name RPGs out there. For example, The Window (found at http://www.mimgames.com/window/ for your pleasure) is almost totally subjective, but I still end up spending quite a bit of time thinking about relative strengths and weaknesses. Not only that, but I also spend some time thinking about what rolls represent. But at least it's a good imaginative excercise.
On 12/10/2004 at 6:12am, Kensan_Oni wrote:
RE: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
Noon wrote: 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)?
I don't think so, for outside forces are the primary factor in speed of play. In solo play, you could conclude combats at a much quicker rate then you would in group play, as due to lack of interaction with various people.
Computer games reflect this aspect by removing the interaction part of the game. All things happen as quickly as the system allows for it, because the factors that would interfer with this (Cross Talk Chatter, Die Rolls, looking Up tables, ext) are taken care automaticly by a program. Therefore, the actual time it takes to resolve things is slowed down to let the players enjoy it.
While removing a lot of the interaction from a RPG would help speed up play somewhat (Lack of tables, less die rolls, so on), it is still the human experince that slows down games. While indeed if you could use one roll to resolve combat, it might speed up the game, but that is still dependent on factors that are not in control of the system.
If you can dispute this, please do. If you have an example of what you mean by speed, this would also help.
Thank you.
On 12/10/2004 at 6:42am, Kensan_Oni wrote:
RE: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
Alan wrote: Hi all,
...
Since the Forge is a game design forum, why don't we focus on what we can control when designing and running a game?
Design Elements that Affect "Speed of Play":
1. Scale of events - how much fantasy action does one execution of real world process address?
2. Points of Contact - how often must rules be consulted while processing a unit of event for the fantasy world.
3. Points of Negotiation - how wide is the scope of existing rules? How often will they lead to discussions about _how_ to decide something in actual play.
4. Handling time. How involved is real world application of the rules?
5. Teachable presentation of rules. Play aids, text presentation, etc.
Actual Play Elements:
1. Choosing players who are interested in what will be run. (Both in content and creative agenda.)
2. Social contract agreesments on time allowed for decisions.
3. Group familiarity with rules.
4. Effective group facilitiation, usually by GM.
Hmm... Here are the problems I see with the issues... although you have good thoughts here.
Design Elements
-------------------
1) Scale is irrelevant to speed of play. A Large Unit Action game can be as complicated and Time Consuming as a man to man fight. Scale of time is also irrelevant if you start considering what resolving things in unusal terms means. If you have a combat round last, say, a day, then the system must reflect all the risks of that day. Most mass melee combat systems that have been developed for most RPG's tend to show that they tend to be more complicated. Even if you design the system so that you take it to a real abstract level, what exactly are you trying to accomplish?
2) This obviously is the most valid point you have. The less time one needs to look up rules, the faster games go. Battletech, before the Field Tatical Books, epitimizes this. Once the system was learned, one hardly needed to pick up the books during game again. Everything was pretty easy to memorize, or put down on a sheet to speed up play. Overall, this is probably the most system related problem out there.
3) This falls under your social contract clause, and should not be taken into consideration of this point.... with the possible exception of diceless RPG's, and in that case, it's also pretty irrelevant. :'D
4) Appliable mainly to LARPG's, this is a interesting point, that I am not really prepared to address... However, this also feels like your Social Contract thing, and should probably be outside the consideation of points.
5) Shouldn't this be addressed as Learning Curve? I will say that well designed aids help speed play... however I have seen enough poorly designed aids to say that they also can have a tendency to slow down play. If you decide to include aids in your design, you must give careful thought on how to use them and where to put them. This is a valid point, and probably deserves the most discusion.
Play Elements
-----------------
1) This is a challenging Real World Problem. Most Game Groups can agree on a general theme... but with each person interested in different aspects of games, it will be hard for a GM to hold the attention of the group at all times.
2) Not controllable in most casual situations... and you can never ever take account for the twenty minutes of laughter effect that occasionally happen. :'D This is not to be said it can't be done, but most groups I've been with bulk when you start to count down time.
3) Absolutly the most critical factor in this section... which is why I suggest we focus on discussing point 5 from the previous section, for well designed aids help speed up the Learning Curve.
4) ... Effective group.... facilitiation ... I can't find this word. What does it mean?
... I really don't intend this to be flamy, although I guess it kinda is... I just am trying to find the issues that I think are relevant, and toss out the rest. However, it is also very hard to use any of these points without a point of reference, no?
On 12/10/2004 at 6:01pm, ffilz wrote:
RE: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
I think part of the hang up we're having on speed of play is that speed of play is not an objective thing, it's subjective, and thus depends on the perception of the player, all of this modified of course by the objective real time that it takes players to process the game (some of which is driven by mechanics, some of which is driven by the individuals [rolling more dice objectively takes longer, even though one player may be able to roll 10 dice in the time it takes another to roll 1]). To this extent, I think it's important to understand how the objective rules interract with the subjective perceptions of the players.
Kensan says that scale is irrelevant to speed of play, and from an objective mechanics point of view that's true. But from a subjective player perception point of view, scale may be the most important factor the rules themselves contrbute. Perceived speed of play is very dependant on "how much story" happens per unit of real time, but it's also very dependant on what the players subjectively want (thus my examples a few posts back where the combat fan found a much shorter time spent on non-combat "slow" while the non-combat fan found the combat "slow").
The amount of rules lookup certainly is a factor also, but it can surprise you. First off, players find ways to optimize this (RoleMaster's bulk of charts looks daunting, but each player actually only has to reference a few at a time [not that I've ever played RoleMaster but I pick on it is the stereotypical "lots of charts" system). Secondly, players may not actually mind spending all that look up time if they feel the results are worthwhile. Again, we're back to player perception.
Points of negotiation can be part of the system. A poorly written system can result in extraneous points of negotiation, no matter how the players develop their social contract. A system can also specifically leave some points of negotiation open (Universalis does this, suggesting that the players should negotiate the rules as part of play during the tenet phase).
Handling time is not just applicable to LARPGS. Quoting from the provisional glossary:
Handling Time
The real time required to process, calculate, and interpret a resolution Technique once its procedures have been applied. See also Search Time.
Frank
Forge Reference Links:
On 12/10/2004 at 8:20pm, Kensan_Oni wrote:
RE: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
ffilz wrote: I think part of the hang up we're having on speed of play is that speed of play is not an objective thing, it's subjective, and thus depends on the perception of the player, all of this modified of course by the objective real time that it takes players to process the game . To this extent, I think it's important to understand how the objective rules interract with the subjective perceptions of the players.
I definatly can agree to this.
ffilz wrote: Kensan says that scale is irrelevant to speed of play, and from an objective mechanics point of view that's true. But from a subjective player perception point of view, scale may be the most important factor the rules themselves contrbute. Perceived speed of play is very dependant on "how much story" happens per unit of real time, but it's also very dependant on what the players subjectively want (thus my examples a few posts back where the combat fan found a much shorter time spent on non-combat "slow" while the non-combat fan found the combat "slow").
Ultimatly, however, this is all abour advancement, wither plot based or not...
Typically advancment in old style RPG's is in the form of experince, which was only gained in combat. It was measurable, and easy to see. Many skills used in old style games were experemental, and did not get fully realized. In more modern games, the story tends to become more important, but when players get stuck, or are left with nothing to interact with (Or they choose not to interact with what is presented to them, as I find the case), then it becomes troublesome.
Part of me really has been thinking that providine the players with a plot map might actually be benificil to see the advancment of plot, so that they know that they are on the right or wrong track. Something like this wouldn't work with an overly complicated plot, but something simple that had many branches (like the Wing Commander mission tree) could help the non-storytellers see their progress, and give them a way to judge their actions. While this might not really speed things up, it is exciting in itself, and helps direct the action of play, which in itself if a good thing.
I don't really know if such a thing could be implimented, but it is a neat idea.
ffilz wrote: Points of negotiation can be part of the system. A poorly written system can result in extraneous points of negotiation, no matter how the players develop their social contract. A system can also specifically leave some points of negotiation open (Universalis does this, suggesting that the players should negotiate the rules as part of play during the tenet phase).
.. *light bulb* Wheedling! Okay... NOW I understand that.... though to be honest, I find that part of the sociability of the game, and not a design choice or flaw... Although I find it highly amusing there is an actual game that encourages such things. :'D
....
I suppose it comes down to the saying "A game can't be all things to all people". Now, I suppose the big question is, what the heck are we trying to speed up? I still don't kref= :'D
Kensan
On 12/11/2004 at 1:08am, Noon wrote:
RE: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
Neel wrote: The reason these techniques worked is because taking either a short or a long time to make a decision is self-reinforcing. If everyone takes a long time to make a decision, then the players don't get to make them very often and so they become rarer and more important, which means they take longer to carefully decide. If everyone is deciding quickly, on the other hand, you'll get to make decisions more often, and so you don't need to take a long time because you'll get another opportunity to make a decision soon enough, and can correct.
I'd never thought of that sort of feedback loop. I'm sorry, nothing to add...it's just such a notable example of how system does matter a lot (in this case, the system of having a timer) and I had to say so!
James: I think your just saying what I did. On the first page there seemed to be a distinct drift to 'it'd be faster if those players just did their thing faster'. That's something a designer can't help with...he can help with shortening table look ups and such like though.
Kensan_Oni: I don't dispute it. I just don't know why something out side a designers control is being used to answer a design question on how to speed play.
I suppose it comes down to the saying "A game can't be all things to all people". Now, I suppose the big question is, what the heck are we trying to speed up? I still don't kref= :'D
It's not really a matter of speed, but results produced over time and work. Lot of work/time spent for little reward wont work. And results are a reward.
For example, you could have one attack roll that takes five minutes to calculate...but if the results are rich enough, there will be no objection from users. Because it pays off...and really reward Vs time its technically the same as a whole fight which takes five minutes and has certain similar rewards. Time (or even work) doesn't really matter, so much as the results (which are rewards, and I'm not just talking XP as a reward. Anything you enjoy as a result, is a reward).
What makes five minutes of time/work worthwhile will vary, but doesn't matter. One designer might decide he's going to aim for X amount of reward for 5 minutes of work/effort, another designer might decide Y amount of reward. Their both aiming for different markets, which is valid. So we don't have to worry about how each user likes different levels of reward and whether that might make the discussion moot.
As I said before, it's a payoff between time and work Vs results (the reward for that time & effort). Well, I didn't mention work, but often enough time and effort are blended into just time (time drags when your doing something unpleasant, so it feels like a time issue).
On 12/30/2004 at 7:23pm, FzGhouL wrote:
RE: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
I've found the best way to effectively speed up game play is have a curve of rules as the gameplay goes on.
Low level characters should have 2-5 options per situation that make sense to them (Maybe other options), and as the character levels up, they should gain a variety yet at the same time, they will already have an idea of what works when. I think the slowest part of gameplay is A) Decision by the players B) ability of the GM to keep the non-battling game interesting and at a reasonable pace. Of course. B is harder to solve...
But as for A, pretty much think of it as a chess board, without all the pieces. Characterrs should start out say, with a couple of pawns. They have a few options, but thery head down the same path. Then, maybe add a bishop, kind of goin' at a different angle, or whatever. As your players level up, they get more, but they know how to use each and everything effectively...
As for an RPG, you got me there :D. The only RPG I've played is the one I wrote, so I have some really obvious bias. But, I've read some systems...And, I don't suggest many D20 system I've read, including D&D.
As for out of battle stuff, my game has no rules, and its totally arbirtrary. I don't really believe in skill rolls out of battle, or I just never got the hang of em'. All I know, is it makes it quick cuz instead of looking at modifiers and DC for things, I just say "You fail" or "You succeed"
Interesting thread :D
On 12/30/2004 at 9:23pm, bcook1971 wrote:
RE: Does Rules-Light Equal Speed of Play?
Welcome to the Forge, FzGhouL!
You make some interesting points about metering options as characters advance. An etiquette tip: we refrain from ressurecting dated threads. A better approach is to start a new one.
But no harm done:)