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

[Thomas Shey]

I agree with GrahamWills here. Extrapolation from fiction is not fundamentally arbitrary. Of course the outcome will vary from table to table, and even from occasion to occasion at the same table, but that doesn't make it arbitrary.

I disagree. It absolutely is. It can't be anything but.

 

[Umbran]

I disagree. It absolutely is. It can't be anything but.

It is in some sense, and not in others. If extrapolation from fiction were fundamentally and completely arbitrary, the results would not generally be a coherent narrative.

There is some element of arbitrariness, choice to fit personal whim. From the same initial situation, pemerton and I could validly extrapolate differently from the same fiction. So, it clearly isn't systematic. However, there's also a requirement for continuity, that strongly constrains the extrapolation. When we each look at the other's extrapolation, we'd probably find them to be valid, in that the result is still a coherent narrative. If the extrapolation were completely arbitrary, we probably would not see any sense each others' results.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It is in some sense, and not in others. If extrapolation from fiction were fundamentally and completely arbitrary, the results would not generally be a coherent narrative.

This assumes the results are going to be a coherent narrative. That's far from a given.

There is some element of arbitrariness, choice to fit personal whim. From the same initial situation, pemerton and I could validly extrapolate differently from the same fiction. So, it clearly isn't systematic. However, there's also a requirement for continuity, that strongly constrains the extrapolation. When we each look at the other's extrapolation, we'd probably find them to be valid, in that the result is still a coherent narrative. If the extrapolation were completely arbitrary, we probably would not see any sense each others' results.

My experience does not tell me that in a situation without exterior constraints there's any assurance that both sides will find the other's valid. That's rather my point.

 

[overgeeked]

I have often wondered what we might get if Morrus stood up a designers/publisher's forum that was read-only to the public, and written to only by design/publishing professionals or specifically invited individuals. Make it a safe place for professionals to talk about their work and thought processes and goals without internet randos being jerks at them. See, say, Monte Cook and Rob Donoghue discuss design principles, and such.

If it's readable by the public, then "internet randos" will be "jerks at them" over other social media. That also weirdly presupposes that somehow the publishing people aren't also opinionated gamers like all of us here and that they would somehow be more well behaved than your typical forum posters. Looking at some of the social media output by some of the top designers and game companies (none from your list...of course) puts the lie to that argument.

 

[pemerton]

I disagree. It absolutely is. It can't be anything but.

I take arbitrary to mean something like unconstrained by reason.

You seem to be using it to mean something like not admitting of a unique answer.

Prince Valiant doesn't have rules for underwater combat. It does have an Agility skill (p 15):

Agility - how agile and well-trained as an athlete the character is: how well he runs, swims, jumps, dodges, climbs, swings on ropes, and so on. . . . Agility plus Brawn is used when a character tries to move quickly or make a sudden action. . . . It is not used in normal combat, but can be attempted as a throw versus a Difficulty Factor to try a special tactic . . .​

A PC was in the water, trying to fight a "dragon" (actually a giant crocodile). The player had a Storyteller Certificate permitting one use of Kill a Foe in Combat as Special Effect. The rules for that include the following (pp 44-46):

The player should not know what Special Effects [NPCs] have, but they should be logical ones for the characters. For example, a beautiful girl is more likely to have the Effects of Incite Lust or Inspire Individual to Greatness than she would be to have Hide or Kill a Foe in Combat. . . . The user states that he is putting into action a Special Effect and reads it into the plot. . . . The Storyteller must create a reasonable explanation for the way in which the Effect takes place, in terms of the current situation. . . . The character must be in combat with the chosen foe at the moment [that Kill a Foe in Combat is used], and not in a disadvantageous situation (surrounded by enemies, injured, his back turned to the enemy). The selected character makes an attack, and the attack is miraculously successful, killing the foe instantly.​

What is required for it to be accepted, as part of the fiction, that the PC in question is in combat with the dragon and not in a disadvantageous situation, such that the Storyteller can create a reasonable explanation for the way in which the Effect takes place?

There is no unique answer to this question. But it's not immune to reason. Here's how it played out at our table:

The attacking creature was a "dragon" (a giant crocodile, found in the episode "A Dragon" in the core rulebook). It had Brawn 15, and a successful Presence check by Sir Gerren revealed that it had the equivalent of heavy armour (+3 combat dice, for 18 overall) which would make bowfire from the Hunnish bowmen they had recruited largely ineffectual.

<snip>

Sir Morgath, meanwhile, used his Agility skill to stay afloat in the water while he drew the greatsword he had taken (in the previous session) from the Bone Laird in Dacia. The player wanted to use his Storyteler Certificate to Kill a Foe in Combat, but wasn't sure whether he satisfied the requirement that "the benefitted character . . . is not in a disadvantageous situation (surrounded by enemies, injured, back turned to the enemy, etc)". As he tried to avoid the thrashing tail of the dragon (losing some dice but not enough to reduce his Brawn) he saw that it had a soft underbelly, and I ruled that if he was able to swim beneath the dragon and stab it there, he could use his certificate as he wanted to.

The Agility check was made, and hence the dragon was slain by Sir Morgath.

And here is what happened to the other PC knights during the fight against the dragon:

Sir Justin, in the water, was trying to use his silvered dagger to reflect sunlight into the eyes of the dragon to dazzle it (he was in no condition to fight it) but was not able to succeed on a check, except to avoid drowning, which he did. Sir Gerren, using his boar spear from the heaving deck of the ship, tried to strike the dragon but failed - it tried to grab the spear away from him but he kept hold despite the physical strain required (mechanically, when the dragon beat Sir Gerren in their opposed combat checks I gave the player the option of losing his spear rather than taking damage, but he declined).

<snip>

An Oratory check by Sir Gerran enabled him to maintain control over the soldiers still on the boat and that had fallen into the water, so only two Huns of the PCs' entourage were lost. The bones of one was recovered so that they could be placed in the reliquary for martyrs of the Order; and Sir Gerran (with successful Hunting + Brawn) was able to harpoon the dragon so that its body could be carried to Constantinople.

The difference between Sir Morgath swimming beneath the dragon to try and stab it in its soft underbelly, and Sir Gerren standing on the deck of the ship using his spear, was more than just flavour. It mattered to the framing and the resolution of the players' declared actions for their PCs. But it didn't depend on complex combat mechanics - it depended on using the very simple mechanics while having regard to the fictional positioning and fictional consequences.

I agree with @Umbran that different people might reasonably extrapolate in different ways, but it's not unconstrained, and the constraints are not invisible to the players. The player of Sir Morgath, for instance, had deliberately invested in his PC's Agility skill over multiple sessions, in order to compensate for his PC having lower Brawn than a typical knight. He was aware that this gave his PC a capacity to tackle the dragon that the other PCs lacked, and he was able to trade on that to establish the necessary fictional positioning to use his Storyteller Certificate. I think that's sufficient to show that the role of the fiction in action resolution wasn't arbitrary.

 

[GrahamWills]

On Extrapolation from fiction being “fundamentally arbitrary”

I agree with @Umbran that different people might reasonably extrapolate in different ways, but it's not unconstrained, and the constraints are not invisible to the players.

Definitely agree here. Players do not accept an arbitrary fiction. In a rules-light system, the GM has to make sure that their fiction makes sense. In a rules heavy system the GM is absolved of that to a large extent; they can always fall back on (as I have heard many times) “I know it doesn’t make sense, but that‘s what the rules say”. The onus on a rules-light GM to have reasonable and appropriate fiction is much stronger — arbitrary application of rules is obvious to all and so cannot be a feature of a successful campaign.

 

[pemerton]

On Extrapolation from fiction being “fundamentally arbitrary”

I think you've quoted me but attributed it to Thomas Shey. Which makes it hard to work out who you're agreeing/disagreeing with.

EDIT: I think we're in agreement?

 

[GrahamWills]

I think you've quoted me but attributed it to Thomas Shey. Which makes it hard to work out who you're agreeing/disagreeing with.

my iPad decided to hate me for a few seconds; hopefully the edited post makes it clear now.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I take arbitrary to mean something like unconstrained by reason.

You seem to be using it to mean something like not admitting of a unique answer.

I won't deny your second I consider relevant, but even accepting your first, your response still makes some assumptions that I consider not a given.

Put simply, even if your response in the given example was "constrained by reason", it does not mean I'm going to assume it always will be, or that everyone is you. As such, the fact you find the lack of constraints of a rules light game freeing is pretty much irrelevant to me, as I just expect it to be an excuse for things to go into a wall, and the fact it won't do so every single time is not a meaningful counter to that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

On Extrapolation from fiction being “fundamentally arbitrary”

Definitely agree here. Players do not accept an arbitrary fiction. In a rules-light system, the GM has to make sure that their fiction makes sense. In a rules heavy system the GM is absolved of that to a large extent; they can always fall back on (as I have heard many times) “I know it doesn’t make sense, but that‘s what the rules say”. The onus on a rules-light GM to have reasonable and appropriate fiction is much stronger — arbitrary application of rules is obvious to all and so cannot be a feature of a successful campaign.

I also don't think the fact some DM's are too timid to do rules redesign when the original design has failed is much of a counterargument; the same kind of mindset that will produce rules that produce stupid results is going to produce stupid results on the fly fairly often, and with less time to think the matter through.