Unpopular opinions go here

[Thomas Shey]

He isn't. Others just haven't chimed in. I made the point earlier that I would weigh something like spells differently than core rules when calling something rules light (for me a lot of that is going to come down to density of the spell entries and how the mechanics work). I think a lot of people make this distinction as well. Also if a game does have spells individually listed, it is going to come down to things like how involved the process of casting is, how involved the process of acquiring spells is, etc.

You make a distinction, but I still haven't seen you claim that the magic system and mechanically descriptive elements of same are not rules. Note you reference the density of the spell entries yourself in the paragraph above in how rules light you consider something to be.

(As I noted, I'm willing to discuss whether elements of the rules not everyone engages with count in fully, but treating magic and the systems associated with as not part of the rules, especially in a fantasy game, seems to make no sense even if you don't weigh them in fully).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

He isn't. Others just haven't chimed in. I made the point earlier that I would weigh something like spells differently than core rules when calling something rules light

That you might weigh them differently is one thing.

That you would create a scaffolding so dense and complex that you would argue that rules aren't rules ... well, I doubt you would be able to imagine such a scenario.

Personally, my head is still spinning at the carousel of possibilities put before me should I choose to dive down that rabbit hole. I might be able to imagine six impossible things before breakfast, but I still have an innate distaste in defining something as the opposite of itself.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You make a distinction, but I still haven't seen you claim that the magic system and mechanically descriptive elements of same are not rules. Note you reference the density of the spell entries yourself in the paragraph above in how rules light you consider something to be.

I am not saying they are not rules. I am saying I distinguish them as different from core rules that make the game function in evaluating how heavy system.

(As I noted, I'm willing to discuss whether elements of the rules not everyone engages with count in fully, but treating magic and the systems associated with as not part of the rules, especially in a fantasy game, seems to make no sense even if you don't weigh them in fully).

I think I was taking the poster's words on this less literally

 

[Bedrockgames]

That you might weigh them differently is one thing.

That you would create a scaffolding so dense and complex that you would argue that rules aren't rules ... well, I doubt you would be able to imagine such a scenario.

Personally, my head is still spinning at the carousel of possibilities put before me should I choose to dive down that rabbit hole. I might be able to imagine six impossible things before breakfast, but I still have an innate distaste in defining something as the opposite of itself.

I wouldn't go so far as to say they aren't rules. I would go so far as to say they are not the same kind of rules as core rules of a game (by which I mean the heart of the system that makes it function, the section generally covered in the rules chapter. They are still mechanics, still rules, but more like individual weapon entries or something that say a rule about how attacks function or how skill rolls are made

 

[Thomas Shey]

I am not saying they are not rules. I am saying I distinguish them as different from core rules that make the game function in evaluating how heavy system.

Yes, but the other poster has argued that, both in effect and potentially literally, they are not rules.

I think I was taking the poster's words on this less literally

If so, they've been remarkably insistent about it, and at the least that they don't factor in rules weight at all. If the latter is true, whether they're speaking literally or not does not overly matter.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I wouldn't go so far as to say they aren't rules. I would go so far as to say they are not the same kind of rules as core rules of a game (by which I mean the heart of the system that makes it function, the section generally covered in the rules chapter. They are still mechanics, still rules, but more like individual weapon entries or something that say a rule about how attacks function or how skill rolls are made

See, I'm used to seeing that in the rules chapter, too. I'm not going to say there may not be cases where they're spun off, but they still seem effectively core rules, as you are unlikely to be able to run the game without them (in fact, in a game that actually does a skill system as standard, I'm not sure how you could run any sort of game with the system at all without at least one of the two).

I mean, seriously, even a rules chapter has something beyond "Here is how you roll dice".

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes, but the other poster has argued that, both in effect and potentially literally, they are not rules.

If that was the point the poster was making, I wouldn't agree with it. It isn't always easy to follow every posters line of thought in these threads.

 

[Bedrockgames]

See, I'm used to seeing that in the rules chapter, too. I'm not going to say there may not be cases where they're spun off, but they still seem effectively core rules, as you are unlikely to be able to run the game without them (in fact, in a game that actually does a skill system as standard, I'm not sure how you could run any sort of game with the system at all without at least one of the two).

I would say how you cast a spell is core rules. But if you have a simple mechanism for casting a spell, and then a list of spells put elsewhere in the book, I treat that differently because you don't have to read and memorize every spell to play the game. You do have to read and memorize rules like how to cast a spell. I will say, how involved individual spells are, matters a lot. One reason I like white box's approach for D&D, and would consider it on the lighter end, is, vague though it is, the spells are generally very easy to deploy as you look them up on the fly (contrast that with 2e or 3e where the spells take a lot more time to read and use in the middle of a game).

 

[Emberashh]

In this case, actually, I think you do; in that what you see as content and what I see as content are, I suspect, a very long way apart

Which is why I keep reiterating to focus on what I say and to not get distracted trying to debate specific words.

The names and usual shapes of the pieces in chess - content, or rule?

Neither. Game tools are a different element altogether.

That one can play a variant where en-passant doesn't apply - does that make en-passant content or rule?

Chess doesn't have any content, as noted, so this is a nonsensical question.

Have I got this right?

Yep.

Part of the confusion here might be because in D&D the core play loop can't exist without what I see as content (a character, a setting, etc.) to hang it on.

Hence the second element of DND that matters: rulings over rules.

But even that is debatable; you can very easily abstract that out of the equation if you don't assume the need for the GM to do anything other than be a facilitator, though the game loses some of its range if you do.

A player can't declare an action without having a character in play for whom such action can be declared and in fact can't even generate a character without knowing the rules-as-content defined parameters that character must adhere to, nor can a DM narrate anything when there's no content on which to base that narration.

Sure they can. Never played Fiasco have you?

You do realize at this point that you seem to be the only person in this discussion who agrees with this, right?

Topic title?

Just to be clear. Rules are rules. Unless the rules are content. In which case rules are not rules.

Rules are Rules. rules are not always Rules.

This has all already been explained, fyi. Im not going to engage a repetitive joke that isn't trying to communicate but just undermine the message.

As I noted, I'm willing to discuss whether elements of the rules not everyone engages with count in fully, but treating magic and the systems associated with as not part of the rules, especially in a fantasy game, seems to make no sense even if you don't weigh them in fully

Theres also a distinction to be made between game in the sense of "what basic game is this Game built around" and Game in the sense of "this great mass of interlocking games and Content that together deliver a specific experience".

Rules light Games seeks to add as little as possible to the underlying game, to keep it closer to that more raw experience (ie, fun), rather than trying to deliver a more complex experience. (Ie, fun tactical attrition fantasy adventuring).

My own game, for example, has 3 core games within it. The same beat a number dice game as DND (tweaked considerably, to be accurate), a multi-dice math game, and a Monopoly style roll to go in circles (but not repetitively). Regardless of everything else in the game, you can engage these and have fun with it. You don't need anything else.

Case in point, I can run the intended experience the Game is meant to provide just by using these three games.

There's also a second layer of secondary games that build off those games, which serve to define that intended experience and reinforce it, but they're the foundational Content from which all the rest gets built out of. As said, you don't need any of these. The game doesn't break if you lose them (but the Game might, if I'm unsuccessful in keeping the system flexible).

Thats things like my Character Progression, Combat, Monster/NPC, Adventuring, Crafting, Domain, and Warfare systems, and to a lesser in scope degree my Social system. This layer forms the basis of that more complex experience, and the game runs and provides the intended experience (at its most minimal obviously) just with these.

But none of these are needed, they only serve to further reinforce the intended experience.

The bulk of the actual Content, much of which is still unwritten, are things like Classes, Materials, Perks, Weapons, Mounts, Spell Effects, individual Monsters, NPCs, Bosses, etc etc.

These, like their foundational systems, are there to again further reinforce the intended experience, but they aren't needed.

This whole pile of extraneous stuff not being needed is the critical part, and is by my assessment at the root of why certain Games can be percieved as poorly designed and why more people than should be could bounce off of them.

Its not some secret that games like Pathfinder and indeed, games like all the PBTAs, get a not insignificant amount of their player base from disgruntled DMs and players of DND.

That disgruntling is rooted in DND, from a design perspective, not having any care or respect for how each layer of the game interacts and how that changes the experience at the other end.

And unlike the great dearth of indie clones of all kinds of systems, that suffer the exact same problem, DND has a great dearth of people who are compelled to play it for reasons beyond its actual worthiness, and so it has a considerable dearth of disgruntled people in its audience that get sent a gruntling to other games that, surely, coincidentally were developed as responses to DND.

 

[MGibster]

GURPS is best played when all the optional rules are enabled. Even the ones that contradict one another.