Unpopular opinions go here

[Bedrockgames]

The original Champions (1981) was 64 pages. Rulez lite would hardly describe it.

Sure, am not saying page count is all just that it is an indication and not disqualifying

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This is different. I think people don’t realize how much this term has changed and how much it varies. I am out right now so typing quickly (don’t want this response to come off as curt as it is not). What I can say is I have been using light for a long time to refer to systems that have smaller file books (100 pages is pretty small for an rpg), play light and fast and don’t require lots of looking up core systems. I even put out games starting 2009 that were 100 pages, marketed as rules light, described as rules light in reviews and in forums. At some point I started seeing a lot of extremely low page count games (1-4 pages) usually described as lite, rather than light). And I think those are a different beast from what I am talking about.

First, I think that we need to discuss the following:

1. Number of rules, and number of pages. I have been consistent in talking about pages of rules, not just pages in general. As @payn already stated, it's entirely possible to have scores of pages of lore and pictures and what-not, and those aren't rules.

2. Number of rules, and rules complexity. A system can have a lot of rules, and not be that complex. This is what @Thomas Shey has been referring to when he talks about "exception-based" design. While I don't necessarily fully agree with him on that, I do agree that his overall point is well-taken in that different approaches to rules can have different levels of complexity. The core rules of Phoenix Command, for example, are under 100 pages. Is that "rules-lite?" Asking for a friend that COULDN'T PLAY THE DANG THING AND RESENTS IT TO THIS DAY. Ahem.

3. Finally, your definition completely obliterates an actual category of games that exist- rules-lite games (or "Light" if you prefer). I should know, because I talk about them all the time. And it's a category that people can sort by (for example, at itch.io). And it's something people look for and try to play. And it's not games with 100 pages of rules.

In terms of rules medium, that is the whole point of WOIN when it first came out as I recall (I remember Morris mentioning that in response to the two options being crunchy games and light)

Look, if you want to talk about the difference between "medium," "heavy," "super-heavy," "massive," and "Could God Create a Rule Set so Heavy that She Could Not Lift It," then I have no objection to that.

I do object to obliterating the difference between games that are actually LIGHT in terms of rules, and other games.

 

[Emberashh]

Depends on which one you like. Whichever one someone likes, that is the rules light game. If they do not like it, it cannot be rules light. Same with simulationist. SImulationist, as far as I can tell means a game someone likes. Does not really matter what the game is or how it is written. If they like it, then it is a sim game. Because they like sim games, anything they like must be a sim game. It is a nice tight circle of impenetrable rhetoric that goes nowhere.

Cynical.

 

[Cadence]

40-100 pages lite??? No, Im sorry, I think these distinctions are not useful at all because everybody makes up a new one everyday.

It feels odd to me to count a list of spells or monsters as part of complexity. I mean, sure, it's more complex than having on the fly stats/spells or everything be the same... but it feels different to me than rules.

 

[Bedrockgames]

3. Finally, your definition completely obliterates an actual category of games that exist- rules-lite games (or "Light" if you prefer). I should know, because I talk about them all the time. And it's a category that people can sort by (for example, at itch.io). And it's something people look for and try to play. And it's not games with 100 pages of rules.

Will get to the rest when I have time, but I don't doubt this. I just think the conversation around games isn't uniform. Itch.io has its own subculture of gaming. I haven' been there. I don't really understand the format. But I get there is a thriving community of RPG discussion and games. However it is also important to keep in mind that terms like Rules Light are being used elsewhere in other game communities, at other tables, etc. I can assure the way I am using it is not that unusual at all in many places. And definitely there are people who will call a 100 page rulebook rules light (provided the system itself is rules light). I think what is happening is there is a lot of fracturing in the RPG community around these kinds of terms.

I do object to obliterating the difference between games that are actually LIGHT in terms of rules, and other games.

Just keep in mind, the very narrow definition being offered of rules light in this thread, is obliterating what many people consider to be a number of actually rules light RPGs. What you guys are talking about is stuff I would label more 'lite' or 'minimalist' design. But these are just differences of terminology. I don't know that there is huge benefit in getting bogged down in these kinds of variations (as debates over terms never really seem to get anywhere in my experience).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

That is a noble attitude that would have made a real difference had it been much more prevalent from the 90s on...

It's been 30 years. Whoever was a jerk to you doesn't deserve to live rent free in your head.

 

[Maxperson]

40-100 pages lite??? No, Im sorry, I think these distinctions are not useful at all because everybody makes up a new one everyday.

This is so true! I was just a Starbucks this morning and the barista pointed to the writing on the cup and said, "This is what a rules lite RPG looks like."

 

[Bedrockgames]

First, I think that we need to discuss the following:

1. Number of rules, and number of pages. I have been consistent in talking about pages of rules, not just pages in general. As @payn already stated, it's entirely possible to have scores of pages of lore and pictures and what-not, and those aren't rules.

I agree. But I also think it depends on what rules. If you are talking about monster entries, skill entries, spells, etc, but you have core rules section that is only 5 pages, I regard as potentially rules light (it still depends a lot on how the rest of the game is expressed though)

2. Number of rules, and rules complexity. A system can have a lot of rules, and not be that complex. This is what @Thomas Shey has been referring to when he talks about "exception-based" design. While I don't necessarily fully agree with him on that, I do agree that his overall point is well-taken in that different approaches to rules can have different levels of complexity. The core rules of Phoenix Command, for example, are under 100 pages. Is that "rules-lite?" Asking for a friend that COULDN'T PLAY THE DANG THING AND RESENTS IT TO THIS DAY. Ahem.

I agree 100%. For me the real measures are:

1) Speed of play (i.e. how fast does any mechanical interaction in the game take? is combat a 3 minute breeze or a 40 minute slog)
2) Speed of character creation
3) Need to look up core rules (can the core rules be remembered easily or are there a ton of rules that are like Grappling in 3E where people always seem to have to look them up to jog their memory). I think a lot of this flows from how streamlined the rules are
4) Brevity of text, particularly around mechanics.
5) Book size (again this isn't disqualifying and there are exceptions but I generally tend to think go books that are under 100 pages as on the lighter side----though lots of exceptions as someone pointed out

3. Finally, your definition completely obliterates an actual category of games that exist- rules-lite games (or "Light" if you prefer). I should know, because I talk about them all the time. And it's a category that people can sort by (for example, at itch.io). And it's something people look for and try to play. And it's not games with 100 pages of rules.

I addressed this in another post. I think if you want to use this definition, that is fine. But keep in mind other people are also finding games based on a different set of criteria for rules light (and it really isn't that uncommon). Itch.io is relatively new, but this is terminology I have been using for like 20 or more years (and in conversations with gamers I know, people I know online, and we all easily understand what each of us means). I think part of that is rules light is by its nature a pretty subjective term (different places online may have put different limits in their own definitions but one person's conception of light is not going to be the same as someone else's).

I see this a lot lately too because in some quarters the terminology has changed (for example I have noticed a lot of people using terms like Traditional RPGs, often reduced to 'trad', or simulationist, in ways I never did). There is nothing wrong with any of this, but I find it quite confusing as it just doesn't match my own gamer lexicon (I recall a review recently where someone kept mentioning trade and simulation in relation to one of my games, and I had no problem with them using that language, but I had a lot of trouble understanding what it meant when they used those terms----in fact I had to google it to find the definition they were using).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

This is so true! I was just a Starbucks this morning and the barista pointed to the writing on the cup and said, "This is what a rules lite RPG looks like."

"Yes, but I told you my name was 'Richard.'"

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I addressed this in another post. I think if you want to use this definition, that is fine. But keep in mind other people are also finding games based on a different set of criteria for rules light (and it really isn't that uncommon). Itch.io is relatively new, but this is terminology I have been using for like 20 or more years (and in conversations with gamers I know, people I know online, and we all easily understand what each of us means). I think part of that is rules light is by its nature a pretty subjective term (different places online may have put different limits in their own definitions but one person's conception of light is not going to be the same as someone else's).

You keep saying this ... but as you can see from just this thread, it is an idiosyncratic definition.*

I have played for just as long as you, and I am perfectly comfortable understanding that "rules lite" refers to a specific category of games, and ones that exclude games that have rules that run to 100 pages.

To the extent you wish to communicate something to people, you might want to use the common usage of the term employed by others. If you do not wish to communicate to those people, then you are welcome to continue to use your own definition; that said, this isn't exactly a jargon thing. I provided you one place (itch.io) as a single example. If you bother looking around, you will see that this is a common conception. For example, you can also search DriveThruRPG for games that are "rules-lite," and you will not find 100 page booklets of rules in there.

You may attempt whatever prescriptivist approach you wish, or argue that you have a private language with others that allows for this relative classification, but in the larger discourse, these words have a meaning ... one that you choose not to use.


*Again, it's been pointed out repeatedly that it's also a meaningless one, given that it's relatively simple to point out a large number of games that are far under that threshhold that even you wouldn't classify as rules-lite. So we are left with the uncomfortable notion that "rules lite" is something that you know when you see, and it leaves the reader with the idea that it is somewhat of a Goldilocks definition as opposed to a category of games that actually exists and does, in fact, have a very ... um ... light approach to rules.