Unpopular opinions go here

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I can't see it, honestly. If you actually need to describe that whole list of spells, its probably a sign of exception-based design (sometimes not; you can have effect-based system spell lists which are simply summaries that could be determined without them if you're familiar with the basic effects), and all the data that goes with that spell is extra cognitive load.

Now, you can get into the weeds of how much of a rules set needs to be known by everyone, and I'd at least entertain that as an argument, but if you go down that road a lot of "rules heavy" games are not as heavy for everyone, either.

 

[Lanefan]

I already explained that; more than one rule has to actually matter.

[re rolling d8 damage for a longsword hit]

That is content.

Er...what?

Already explained that. Content isn't a part of the underlying game rules, and it makes intuitive sense actually with the specific example you picked; rolling a die to generate a number isn't much of a game.

Yet it seems that's the level to which you want to deconstruct this.

How that number is used as part of the actual game is, but it does not matter to that game.

How so? I mean, if you use that number one way as opposed to another enough different ways it eventually becomes a different game.
You could change the die used each time. You could decide not to use the die and just declare the sword does a fixed amount of damage every time it hits. Little changes, but make enough of them and it's a different game.

Take chess and checkers. Both involve moving pieces around in rules-constrained manners on an 8x8-square board. Are you suggesting they're in fact the same game and that the specific pieces (and rules for moving such) are just content?

If yes, that's IMO a rather excessive degree of deconstruction, and likely won't help anyone in designing a game. But if no, where's the dividing line? How many changes can you make to chess to make it more like checkers before you cross the line into it being a different game?

Do refer to the Pokemon reference if you're still struggling.

Given that I didn't understand what you were getting at there either, and have never played Pokemon in any form, that probably won't help me much.

Edit; And Ill reiterate again that focusing too much on ones preconceptions over a vague phrase, and not enough on what Im actually saying, is the wrong way to approach this conversation.

If I could figure out what you were actually saying, I could focus on it. Thus far, while your concept might be clear in your own mind it isn't coming across clearly at all in your explanations.

 

[Lanefan]

Rules light is a pretty subjective term. I think there are roughly : heavy, medium, light and minimalist RPGs. I would say 1-2 page RPGs is more on minimalist side. If we are just talking core rules, not rest of book (spells, monsters, etc), I think like 2-8 pages rules is rules light. But page count alone doesn’t really capture it.

For D&D early versions of basic strike me as rules light (not rules streamlined but rules light). AD&D I would say is not rules light, but certainly lighter than most of the post TSR editions

I strongly suspect D&D 1e as most often played was considerably rules-lighter than D&D 1e as written; and yes, the as-played version was-is rules-lighter than any of the WotC versions (exception: 5e with feats and skills stripped out gets into the same ballpark). 1e as written gets pretty rules-heavy in some aspects.

 

[Lanefan]

None of that matter in rules complexity and/or quantity. Saying rules medium says nothing besides somebody is really trying not to let lite or heavy leave an impression on the quality. Don't make the same mistake as other folks in thinking value needs to be somehow represented in the quantity and/or complexity of a rule set. That element is not necessary because the quality of design can be judged independently in both lite and heavy rule sets.

Quality has nothing to do with the rules lightness-heaviness spectrum, given that one can have both high- and low-quality games at both ends of said spectrum.

It's a red herring.

 

[payn]

Quality has nothing to do with the rules lightness-heaviness spectrum, given that one can have both high- and low-quality games at both ends of said spectrum.

It's a red herring.

That is exactly what I said.

 

[Lanefan]

Sorry, Rich. You failed your save vs. pumpkin spice. Roll up a new character.

Can I name that one Richard too?

 

[overgeeked]

I strongly suspect D&D 1e as most often played was considerably rules-lighter than D&D 1e as written; and yes, the as-played version was-is rules-lighter than any of the WotC versions (exception: 5e with feats and skills stripped out gets into the same ballpark). 1e as written gets pretty rules-heavy in some aspects.

I'd bet money that something like 99% of AD&D as actually played was lighter than AD&D as written. Even Gygax ignored heaps of his own rules when he ran the game. In my experience most AD&D games were a mish-mash of OD&D, B/X, BECMI, and AD&D rules. The first three are all far, far lighter than AD&D proper.

 

[Lanefan]

That is exactly what I said.

Ah, OK. It came across as if you were saying the opposite: that there's a direct correlation between quality and quantity.

 

[Emberashh]

Nope. They're both data that has to be learned, retained, and applied.

Nope. If a particular bit of content isn't in active use, it has absolutely zero bearing on the game; it is in a fact a waste of time to learn, memorize, or otherwise "apply" it when it literally isn't beingnused.

That's still a rule. That's how rules work.

Again, pay attention to what I am actually saying.

Getting into debates over words is useless. Engage what Im actually saying.

Er...what?

I don't think I need to explain to you what the word content means.

Take chess and checkers. Both involve moving pieces around in rules-constrained manners on an 8x8-square board. Are you suggesting they're in fact the same game and that the specific pieces (and rules for moving such) are just content?

Somehow, you've oversimplified Checkers in your quest to disagree with me. Incredible.

If yes, that's IMO a rather excessive degree of deconstruction, and likely won't help anyone in designing a game.

Knowing the difference between rules and content is pretty vital for designing any kind of game. Chess (and Checkers) are games without any content whatsoever, and Chess in particular is considered one of if not the greatest single game of all time. (At least in the West)

Given that I didn't understand what you were getting at there either, and have never played Pokemon in any form, that probably won't help me much.

The point was that good games are still good games even when stripped of all their content. Aside from the extra step of even skipping the rules, this is fundamentally what FKR advocates believe in.

The core resolution rule of DND can be the single mechanical backbone for a pure roleplaying experience where all content is just created on the fly; and in fact often times a lot of GMs introduce people by creating such a game to ease people into the dearth of content these games offer.

That, amongst other issues covered elsewhere, is what plays into the assessment. 5e is rules light because at the end of the day, the complexity of its content is 100% opt in. The game does not break if you drop any of it or even all of it.

And as said, yes, none of this is intuitive. Thats game design for you. Thats wjy.Pokemon was compared to Rock/Paper/Scissors. That comparison was made because its the easiest way to see the difference between a game and a dearth of content for said game.

If you want another phrase to chew on if you just can't cope with the phrase Im using, its the difference between the core gameplay loop and literally everything else about the game. The latter doesn't make for a game, and the former never needs the latter to be fun. (Assuming it was designed well, anyway)

DNDs core gameplay loop hasn't actually changed much since inception. The aesthetics of its content, and thus many of the subordinate gameplay loops have, but none of those matter.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Again, pay attention to what I am actually saying.

Getting into debates over words is useless. Engage what Im actually saying.

I did. Your (unstated) assumption is that "rules that people may not use, even if they are part of the core game, are not rules."

Which is certainly an opinion, but is not one I share. Rules are, for lack of a better word ... rules.

Just like if someone was to say, "D&D is a game that doesn't have spells," I would look askance at them, even if the unstated assumption is, "Because it's possible to play D&D with an all-fighter party that never encounters magic items and never runs into critters with magic, it is possible to play without spells, therefore there are no spells."

You seem to want to differentiate the "core gameplay loop" with "other rules." And that's fine, for you. Perhaps you have an advanced idea (as I alluded to earlier) about the difference in complexity. But you can't simply define "rules" as "not rules."