The Stakes of Classifying Games as Rules Lite, Medium, or Heavy?

[Endroren]

I'm not sure if my original comment demonstrates a subjective bias so much as it does an awareness that such a bias may be present in such discussions, hence the thread about the stakes of such classification.

Sorry if I wasn't clear! I read an implied bias in this statement:

Are there incentives for games to be perceived and classified as lighter than they accurately are?

I wasn't necessarily suggesting that it is YOUR bias. I meant that there is this idea that I've seen in the market today that somehow lite is advantageous and I was pointing out that it's so prevalent that even the introduction to this discussion even contains this bias. And any bias about "quality" is by its nature subjective.

(And it's definitely something to consider as a publisher!)

 

[Argyle King]

I think there's a common misconception that the weight of rules are reflective of their complexity or the difficulty involved in understanding them.

 

[Blue]

Stakes are the opposite - we are losing a useful descriptive term if we refuse to classify. There are no stakes to truthfully classifying, but there costs not to do so.

If you consider people picking or skipping a game based on it's truthful level of crunchiness not meeting their hobby wants, that's a benefit, not a stake. It's not even a "stake" to those selling the games - selling games to get returned and/or bad reviews are not beneficial.

 

[Umbran]

I think there's a common misconception that the weight of rules are reflective of their complexity or the difficulty involved in understanding them.

I think there is a common (and probably mostly accurate) conception that the work required for entry into the game goes up as weight of rules rises. I think there's also a mostly accurate conception that the amount of time spent on adjudicating an action goes up with the weight of rules.

 

[Staffan]

the opposite marketing term is not ‘rules heavy’ though. You always accentuate the positives (no-one sells ice-cream as ‘high fat’ …). The advantages of light rules are clear, so if you don’t have light rules you have to stress what your rules do really well. That might be to make an appeal to simulation or realism, or to nostalgia; or it may be to stress how universal they are.

I think the positive twist on rules-heavy is something like "rich in detail" or "features a plethora of options".

I'm not sure where I heard it first, but I like the saying that complexity is the currency with which you buy depth. If you want a system where two master warriors can have very different fighting styles, and where that matters beyond flavor, you need a system that has fairly complex combat rules. If you also want the same system to allow you to make characters that are masters of other things, and to have those things have as much meaning as being a master warrior within a particular discipline, you need to have a lot of detail in those other areas too.

 

[Argyle King]

I think there is a common (and probably mostly accurate) conception that the work required for entry into the game goes up as weight of rules rises. I think there's also a mostly accurate conception that the amount of time spent on adjudicating an action goes up with the weight of rules.

I disagree with the premise of that being mostly accurate.

Light rules which work in an un-intuitive manner can be a bigger barrier to learning than a heavier game which is built with more intuitive parts.

*edited to clarify context; autocorrect deleted words

 

[overgeeked]

Instead, my interest rests in the fundamental stakes of this system of classification from rules lite to rules heavy commonly found in our hobby. Why does this classification matter for some people?

Because people have preferences in regards to how much rules a game has and how much time it will take to reach "system mastery" using those rules.

What is gained through classifying games along this spectrum?

The same as classifying books, games, and media by genre. So the audience knows what to expect when they pick it up.

What is at stake if D&D 5e, for example, gets classified as Rules Heavy rather than Rules Medium?

It would skew the most common way to define what those categories mean. It would require we have new categories, something like "rules ultra-heavy" or similar for games that are clearly and wildly more involved, rules wise, than D&D 5E. 5E is generally considered rules medium, as it's the benchmark by which all other games are judged, that's typically a good thing. Rules light = less rules than 5E. Rules medium = about the same amount of rules as 5E. Rules heavy = more involved rules than 5E. Not the best system, obviously, but it passes the sniff test.

Are there incentives for games to be perceived and classified as lighter than they accurately are?

Lighter rules imply easier use, less to memorize, less flipping back and forth finding rules in the book, and less time to reach system mastery. Whether that's true or not is a debate for another thread.

For me, I prefer ultra-light rules. The lighter the better. If it can't fit on a page, it's too much. A paragraph or two, even better. A sentence or two, better still. So when something is described as rules light I'll pay attention to the rules themselves. Anything more involved than that, rules wise, might get me to check out the setting. And, if it's interesting enough, I'll use it with some rules light or ultra-light system.

 

[Hussar]

5e as a benchmark of medium is good; in engineering we have correction factors, such as with dynamometer or dyno for test vehicle horsepower, the correction factor is a '78 Kawasaki Z1 motorcycle.

I'm sorry, but, a game with a 300+ page book just for the players, never minding what the DM needs, is very, very far from rules medium.

For me, the benchmark of rules medium would be Savage Worlds. Maybe Basic/Expert D&D I suppose. Star Frontiers maybe?

But any hardcover version of D&D? Not even remotely. Sure, it's not HERO or Harn but, it's still an incredibly crunchy system.

 

[pemerton]

If you want a system where two master warriors can have very different fighting styles, and where that matters beyond flavor, you need a system that has fairly complex combat rules.

I'm not sure that this is right. The difference between the two could come out in the way fictional positioning is used, both as an input into action resolution and as an element of the outcomes of action resolution.

 

[Cadence]

I'm sorry, but, a game with a 300+ page book just for the players, never minding what the DM needs, is very, very far from rules medium.

For me, the benchmark of rules medium would be Savage Worlds. Maybe Basic/Expert D&D I suppose. Star Frontiers maybe?

But any hardcover version of D&D? Not even remotely. Sure, it's not HERO or Harn but, it's still an incredibly crunchy system.

I wonder how many people count options the same as rules? Is D&D lighter if there are only 36 spells and 4 weapons? Does a light or medium game lose that status when the first splat book comes out?