Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[Theory of Games]

For me, the key thing is that once you improvise rules for underwater knife fights, those become the rules for underwater knife fights. And if you have an underwater knife fight in the future, it had better follow those rules or the players will rightly be upset that you’ve changed the game on them.

People like to say “rulings, not rules,” but the practical reality is “rulings equal rules.”

The exception here is narrative-based rules like QuestWorlds or HeroQuest that explicitly say the dice mechanics have nothing to do with the scenario and everything to do with the storytelling. Whether it’s hard to defeat the dragon has nothing to do with the dragon’s “stats” and instead whether the storyline says it’s the right time to defeat the dragon.

Welcome to En World!

Agreed on your rules/ruling points, as well. Consistency is everything. Almost.

 

[bloodtide]

I'm not sure rules matter for consistency. But what is consistency? I guess everyone is using the "everything exactly the same" definition. But to apply that to something like an RPG?

A "consistent" game would just be one that is just a repeat of the same thing: it has to be to be "consistent".

And, yes, it is popular is Rules Heavy games. The GM has to use only the rules and put a challenge in the way of the characters. Though a rules heavy challenge is just a DC. And worse it is a generic thing. Such a game can just drop all the fluff and just say "you encounter a DC 20, roll to get past it". Sure the DM can add meaningless fluff, but it never changes or effects the DC.

But a Light Rule game is never the same or even close. As there are no rules, anything can happen. This allows for more freedom then Rules Heavy games. You will see less "consistency" as anything can happen in the Light Rules game, not just the next same DC again.

There is a big exception here, though and it's not about how many rules the game has : It is creativity.

The By-The-Book game will only use official things listed in the book. Many players love this as they can know everything in the book and know everything in the game. This gives that very consistent feel. As soon as the DM says anything, the player can nod and say "ah, from page 11".

The Anything Goes game...well, anything goes. The GM makes up new rules or anything else on a whim. The player will always be clueless.

And both heavy and light rules can be by-the-book or anything goes.

 

[PrunellaUK]

Consistency is synonymous with repetition. Who wants a story that repeats?

 

[payn]

Consistency is synonymous with repetition. Who wants a story that repeats?

I think what they mean is consistency in rules application. It has zero to do with the narrative.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It's a hard thing to define, but I think a "symptom" of lack of consistency would be player frustration. Consistency, whether because of rules or rulings, would mean that players understand what to expect.

 

[bloodtide]

If the players want to know what to expect for consistency, this is simply repeating the game play over and over and over again. The GM presents a scene, again the fluff does not matter, as the core rules will always be the same as last time. The players are free to do any fluff they want, but the rules for whatever it is are always the same as the last time.

 

[Arilyn]

If the players want to know what to expect for consistency, this is simply repeating the game play over and over and over again. The GM presents a scene, again the fluff does not matter, as the core rules will always be the same as last time. The players are free to do any fluff they want, but the rules for whatever it is are always the same as the last time.

I don't think this is accurate. Players would get pretty bored. Even the most conscripted game isn't that predictable and formulaic.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think this is accurate. Players would get pretty bored. Even the most conscripted game isn't that predictable and formulaic.

Just to add to this:

@bloodtide's posts assume that the stakes in the fiction doesn't matter - that "success" is purely the mechanical phenomenon of rolling high, and that all that is at stake in the game is success in that sense.

Even if that were true, that still wouldn't make bloodtide's posts correct - because even in a rules heavy game, it is typically possible to affect the probabilities by making choices that engage the fiction (eg in Rolemaster, taking cover can improve your defensive bonus).

But at least in my experience of RPGing, it is not true. Players care about the fictional stakes.

 

[Aldarc]

If the players want to know what to expect for consistency, this is simply repeating the game play over and over and over again. The GM presents a scene, again the fluff does not matter, as the core rules will always be the same as last time. The players are free to do any fluff they want, but the rules for whatever it is are always the same as the last time.

Also to add to the point that @Arilyn and @pemerton made: Considering how a lot of rules light games often involve simple mechanics that are broadly applied, your criticism of consistency could also apply to rules light games. You could have a rules light game, for example, that just involves rolling a six on a d6 to succeed. Challenges in that case will be rolling that d6 for a 6 every time no matter what you are facing or regardless of the fluff, and that is not the result of a rules heavy rpg.

 

[Composer99]

I read @Celebrim's statement on "fudging" with respect to PbtA-style games as referring to when a player character makes a Move and the result of the die roll requires the GM/facilitator to make some kind of Move in response, where what that looks like within the fiction are largely within the GM/facilitator's purview, subject to constraints imposed by the rules of the game on the GM/facilitator. I hope Celebrim can clarify if I've misunderstood.

That does seem to me to be a rather idiosyncratic definition of "fudging", which usually involves ignoring the outcome of a die roll.

---

Apropos of the main topic, it seems to me that what I enjoy most about rules-heaviness when playing D&D 5e and 4e is the presence of game-mechanical aspects in and of themselves. I don't want rules as drivers of world-simulation; what I want is the "gamification" experience that game mechanics provide.

The sorts of rules that enhance this kind of experience are player character abilities, as well as procedural/process rules that structure play so as to (a) move play forward through the fiction and (b) force me to make decisions that I find interesting or compelling.

Rules-light games, as a rule, also have reasonable quantity of player character abilities, such as playbooks in PbtA-style games, and processes of play that have the same effect as detailed in the above paragraph, so to my mind what I find enjoyable is, specifically, the explicit "game-ness" of the rules-heavy play experience.

That is, what is satisfying about a D&D combat, as opposed to conflict resolution mechanics in lighter systems? Part of it is simply the leveraging of mechanics in and of themselves, by breaking the conflict out into structured procedures with highly granular outcome resolution.

That is not to everyone's tastes; well and good.