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

[Thomas Shey]

5e defines the mainstream full stop. Some posters used to get mad at me for calling it mainstream.

I do get very annoyed with all the virtue signaling around popularity used to put other games, playstyles, and entire posters in a box where they are treated as basically irrelevant. Basically if you exist on the margins of our overall play culture it feels like you must constantly demure and subjugate yourself before the dominant culture. Basically apologize for your games, your tastes, your perspective, etc. Have your views, experiences, and viewpoint be treated as less valuable on an individual basis. It feels very patronizing.

This is a bit of a problem here in particular just because this board is so D&D-centric; there's a fair number of people who view the world in terms of D&D and also-rans.

The biggest case and point for this is all the special pleading around the flexibility of mainstream games. If you prefer less popular games well they must be these narrow bespoke experiences. Not just different ones.

People who make that claim certainly can't have seen Cortex.

I don't particularly like being put in a box like that. The call to basically have warning labels for games that clearly have things like binding social mechanics feels very much like asking us to apologize for existing.

No. It just says that people who want things on the margins of the hobby are used to looking for that. I'd find it pretty surprising to find people who are used to Fate or PbtA games who would expect one of the million 5e derivatives to serve their needs. They aren't liable to get an unpleasant surprise, and they're fairly unlikely to hit something that really is disruptive to their group (though its not impossible; I suspect even people used to PbtA could find at least the first version of Monsterhearts a bit much, but that's got to do with its particular topics than anything else).

On the other hand, the number of people who take it as a given that social mechanics will be minor and/or not apply to PCs is very large.

As an analogy, its like allergies: everything that has nuts in it warns people about it because nut allergies are so damn common. If you've got a less common allergy, you have to do your own research, but because its less common, you're used to that for the most part; at least as an adult you don't eat things without checking the ingredients.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It doesn't apply to PbtA either, at least as a blanket category. AW draws a super-sharp line between in-character and out-of-character actions. The rulebook discusses it in detail, and cautions against introducing custom moves that carelessly blur the distinction.

Well, I'm not sure everyone considers the same things to land on this (I've seen earlier discussion in this thread where some PbtA proponents consider some things in-character that the people I'm talking about absolutely wouldn't), but I'm not going to claim I know every PbtA game, either, as its not my cuppa on other grounds so the only ones I've looked at were ones I found topically interesting because they aren't common.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I absolutely think some types of games are set up to engage with potential group problems of specific sorts than others (and note this can be different games for different issues). If you don't, well, then we're pretty much at an impasse here.

I would cite @Campbell here in his last post. It is just as likely people will run into issues when playing D&D as it is they will run into issues when playing a PbtA game. I'm entirely sure nobody can produce any sort of convincing evidence that this is not a reasonable position. It seems to me to be the least likely one to be a result of motivated/biased reasoning, and the best default assumption to make. You are, of course, welcome to disagree.

You can take my opinion on that in good faith or not, but I have every reason to believe its true.

I don't have bad faith, I just don't see how it is possible to establish any firm basis for such an opinion, and thus it falls into that category where it seems like you want it to be so is its strongest virtue. We all do this to a degree.

I'm not the typical D&D-centric poster on this board. Honestly, the only reason I'm here is the board culture suits me better than the other options I've found (and the other one that suited me, well, apparently I didn't suit them). So to read into what I'm saying that I'm using 5e as the standard is kind of projecting here. I may have a trad-centric view to some extent, but I've not lived in a cave for the last 20 years, either, and I'm usually capable of seeing needs that games that don't work for me personally serve. Similarly I can see where games don't seem to serve the group dynamics of most apparent groups out the gate, and others where its a coin flip but at the least there's a significant number they don't.

Yeah, that's cool. I'm not trying to beat anyone up about it either. I have played a LOT of D&D, and I certainly didn't hate it. I just found that a LOT of players actually have at least as much fun playing other forms of RPGs, and calling those things that need 'warning labels' and are 'out of the mainstream' (of RPGs, as if anything in this hobby is mainstream, you gotta be kidding) has an aura of prejudice around it.

You're not required to agree with my assessment, but I'd at least appreciate assuming I come by it honestly and am not just trying to favor what I like or that I'm oblivious to the virtues new designs bring to the table.

I cannot say what motivates it. I can't see objective evidence for ANY opinion on the subject, that's all. I don't claim that D&D isn't 'mainstream', I think it is certainly the most established form of RPG. So, are we really differing much? I object to the 'othering' that is implied in relegating other games to some 'niche category' and the attendant idea that somehow they're 'damaging' to the group cohesion of play groups and should be labeled. Its a form of reasoning, and this is all a form of argument, that is uncomfortably close in character to that which you will hear surrounding far more fraught issues in our society. I'm sure there are people reading this thread who can relate to that. It makes me a bit uncomfortable. Applied to RPGs, I think its pretty harmless, but 'othering' of this sort can get pretty ugly!

That's fair. But again, I make an attempt to understand what the general tendencies in gaming preferences and problems are specifically because some of them don't apply to me. The success of D&D 5e is pretty much the poster child for that, since it isn't appreciably better suited to my tastes than D&D 4e was (in some respects 3e was closer than either--which is probably why I'm finding PF2e acceptable--but it was also a massive train wreck).

Yeah, I obviously am not exceptionally satisified with 5e, and 3.x was useless to me. I'd say AD&D didn't ACTUALLY work that well either, we just didn't know any better back in those days. Frankly I see D&D and its play paradigm as mostly just the beneficiary of incumbency. Most people that become interested in RPGs get pulled into a D&D game, and the majority of them aren't that likely to be exposed to much else. Its not like anyone else is really out there with much of an interest in replacing D&D in its market dominance. There's zero money to be made in this business, basically. So, things don't really change. Beyond that, D&D DOES have some really useful and compelling features! I just don't think "the DM tells whatever story he wants to" is actually one of them, lol.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Okay. I was a backer of Scion 2e (because I loved the concept of 1e, but it had problems on its problems), but when the Storypath version came out, it had a couple of big problems from my POV. One of them doesn't related to this in general, because its its at least partly, probably mostly a taste issue.

But then there's Momentum.

Now, to be fair to them, they do somewhat recognize the problem I'm about to discuss, since they present an alternate version of it that doesn't have it. But its one of those sort of tucked-in-the-optional rules things that people do when playtesters have told them something is a problem but they really don't believe them. It should be emphasized right out the gate when Momentum is brought up, because its potential problem with a lot of groups, and a really serious one for some.

The issue is that Momentum is a group resource (as I recall, if you're not familiar with Storypath, I think if I'm not being confused, the Modiphus 2D20 systems usually use something similar--might even use the same name). This has two potential problems that can come up with it, and because of the nature of the problems, will probably in a lot of groups not get talked out until its exceedingly obvious the problem is there.
1. On one hand, some people will tend to use Momentum any time its even vaguely useful because its there and they don't like to fail. The net effect is that other people don't effectively get their share of a resource they've helped to generate. But there's no obvious metric to "how much is too much".
2. At the other end, some people will be overly conservative about using it because they don't want to hog the Momentum, to the point of not using it the way the system expects you to. While some of this can occur even when its not a group resource, its less severe since they're only worried about their own future needs, not the groups.
Its not even going to be particularly uncommon to hit both in the same group, which makes the matter worse.

Now is this going to be a problem with every group? Of course not. But I think its not illegitimate to claim that people mostly experienced with groups with a greater cohesion in how everyone supports everyone else in the group are going to not think of rather large numbers of people who aren't quite as good about this. And some of those people are game designers, and I think they tend to either underestimate how common this sort of thing is, or (and this is far worse) just think its not their problem.

I'm fortunate that I'm with gaming groups that are older and self-aware enough that we looked at this and said "Yeah, that's trouble looking for a place to happen" right out the gate, but not every group is, and I think warning signs are simply good practice for that reason. And this can apply to all kinds of things, some of which I quite like, but have enough evidence to know is a minority view on.

I mean, sure, nobody can say that one or another group is not going to have an issue with any certain game. I am just not going to be convinced that there's any more danger of this happening with momentum than it is with hit points or Vancian spell casting. I've literally seen both of those things bother people enough to get them to stop playing D&D too. Not trying to be dismissive, but I just think you're fitting the facts to your view of things, not vice versa, and that's motivated reasoning. I don't even mean it as a criticism, just as a point of information to consider. Nor do I think any of the rest of us are immune to it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I mean, sure, nobody can say that one or another group is not going to have an issue with any certain game. I am just not going to be convinced that there's any more danger of this happening with momentum than it is with hit points or Vancian spell casting.

Then I guess we're done. It seems to me there's a big difference between "This disrupts a groups social dynamic" and "this is a thing the group doesn't like", and if you can't see the difference, don't see as we have much else to talk about.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Then I guess we're done. It seems to me there's a big difference between "This disrupts a groups social dynamic" and "this is a thing the group doesn't like", and if you can't see the difference, don't see as we have much else to talk about.

OK, but again, why is Vancian spell casting just 'something they don't like', but, PbtA's style of relying on players to guide the direction of play, and lack of 'GM tells their story' structure 'disruptive' and not just also 'something they don't like'. Is it because FACTUALLY one is qualitatively different from the other, or is it because the people who don't like it have a rhetorical use for creating a different category for what they don't like?

I REALLY AM perfectly willing to accept evidence of a qualitative difference. I'm simply not comfortable with just taking anyone's word for things like that. Its not even like we've reasoned through what MIGHT be qualitatively different in any substantive way (though I think maybe some of the analysis in other threads over the years here might provide some interesting fodder for doing so).

And I actually am not terribly averse to your argument that there are possibly default assumptions that operate in many cases when people buy games. THAT line of reasoning could at least lead to something like "Yeah, people might tend to expect XYZ more often than ABC in a game." If a publisher says to me "yeah, this is why we call this particular line of RPGs out as being different from the others and spend more time explaining them." OK, I can buy that! I'd still be careful deploying analogous reasoning in other spheres, but it might be a pretty reasonable position for a game publisher to take. As I've said before, I have nothing against education, maybe some games benefit from it more than others.

 

[Thomas Shey]

OK, but again, why is Vancian spell casting just 'something they don't like', but, PbtA's style of relying on players to guide the direction of play, and lack of 'GM tells their story' structure 'disruptive' and not just also 'something they don't like'. Is it because FACTUALLY one is qualitatively different from the other, or is it because the people who don't like it have a rhetorical use for creating a different category for what they don't like?

I didn't say it was. Note I made a big distinction between the two kinds of problems. One is a problem of player expectation contrasted with what the game is giving you, the latter an problem of designer expectation with what the players at the other end are like. I might have opinions about what sorts of design are liable to into problems more often (which contrary to some people in this discussion I don't think is a trivial issue) but there's a big difference between the two.

And I actually am not terribly averse to your argument that there are possibly default assumptions that operate in many cases when people buy games. THAT line of reasoning could at least lead to something like "Yeah, people might tend to expect XYZ more often than ABC in a game." If a publisher says to me "yeah, this is why we call this particular line of RPGs out as being different from the others and spend more time explaining them." OK, I can buy that! I'd still be careful deploying analogous reasoning in other spheres, but it might be a pretty reasonable position for a game publisher to take. As I've said before, I have nothing against education, maybe some games benefit from it more than others.

Which is what I'm talking about in the second category.

I think the first is far more critical, though, and I think, if anything, game designers are more likely to make assumptions about it than the second. I think this is likely because just seeing other designs will tell you a lot of people seem to carry certain expectations or wants different from what you're giving them, and its probably doing nobody any favors to not let them know that.

But going in with different expectations about how players interact with each other, and with GMs is both easier to do, and far more problematic to fail to explain.

(There is a weird in-between case you can argue about power relationships between GMs and players, but I think what I'm talking about is more related to whether a GM is expected to have an adversarial, supporting, or somewhere in between relationship, That's only liable to disappear if there's no meaningful GM role at all, far as I can tell.)

 

[Cadence]

OK, but again, why is Vancian spell casting just 'something they don't like', but, PbtA's style of relying on players to guide the direction of play, and lack of 'GM tells their story' structure 'disruptive' and not just also 'something they don't like'. Is it because FACTUALLY one is qualitatively different from the other, or is it because the people who don't like it have a rhetorical use for creating a different category for what they don't like?

I REALLY AM perfectly willing to accept evidence of a qualitative difference. I'm simply not comfortable with just taking anyone's word for things like that. Its not even like we've reasoned through what MIGHT be qualitatively different in any substantive way (though I think maybe some of the analysis in other threads over the years here might provide some interesting fodder for doing so).

And I actually am not terribly averse to your argument that there are possibly default assumptions that operate in many cases when people buy games. THAT line of reasoning could at least lead to something like "Yeah, people might tend to expect XYZ more often than ABC in a game." If a publisher says to me "yeah, this is why we call this particular line of RPGs out as being different from the others and spend more time explaining them." OK, I can buy that! I'd still be careful deploying analogous reasoning in other spheres, but it might be a pretty reasonable position for a game publisher to take. As I've said before, I have nothing against education, maybe some games benefit from it more than others.

I read it as them particularly talking about Momentum being a shared resource and how one player might use up more than their share of it, causing problems if the players weren't good at balancing that. (Are there spotlight issues in other games?). Vancian magic (vs. other magic systems) doesn't seem to involve interparty sharing in that same qualitative sort of way to me.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No. It just says that people who want things on the margins of the hobby are used to looking for that. I'd find it pretty surprising to find people who are used to Fate or PbtA games who would expect one of the million 5e derivatives to serve their needs. They aren't liable to get an unpleasant surprise, and they're fairly unlikely to hit something that really is disruptive to their group (though its not impossible; I suspect even people used to PbtA could find at least the first version of Monsterhearts a bit much, but that's got to do with its particular topics than anything else).

By the same token, anyone who’s likely to be disrupted by something that deviates from traditional play is likely already aware of such. Like, anyone who actually has the opinion “I hate meta-currencies” isn’t some wide-eyed novice. As such, they can do their own research rather than expecting the book to cater to them.

I’ll add that I’m currently reading Heart: The City Beneath, and although it doesn't have any overt warnings along the lines you seem to want, it does include a section about the differences from Heart to more traditionally oriented games. I don’t think Heart is alone in that; many such games go out of their way to explain how they're different.

None do it so overtly as like a cover label, but many tend to address the issue.

Then I guess we're done. It seems to me there's a big difference between "This disrupts a groups social dynamic" and "this is a thing the group doesn't like", and if you can't see the difference, don't see as we have much else to talk about.

How can anyone know it would be disruptive? How can designers predict how any gaming group will use their product? My players took some getting used to more narrative games, but it certainly wasn’t disruptive socially. I can imagine that if there was some overt warning marking a game as “different” then maybe one or more of them would have been less inclined to even try.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I read it as them particularly talking about Momentum being a shared resource and how one player might use up more than their share of it, causing problems if the players weren't good at balancing that. (Are there spotlight issues in other games?). Vancian magic (vs. other magic systems) doesn't seem to involve interparty sharing in that same qualitative sort of way to me.

Yup. The issue with by-the-book Momentum is that it assumes players have a balanced approach to dealing with and trusting each other's judgment in a way that makes a shared resource make sense. That's a heck of a big assumption, both by personal experience and by listening to other people talk about games over the years. And if its not true, its a big failure state.