Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[Thomas Shey]

Though for those of us who don't play it, it is important to remember that is the baseline most of these discussions arise from. In engineering it is called a correction factor, used for calibration.

I get your point, but I also think it kind of distorts a lot of discussion not based around D&D being a special snowflake that deserves special consideration.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've decided, I think, that the great dividing line between gamers on matters of taste is structure. On one pole, we have folks who are fundamentally skeptical of GMs and their authority. They don't trust it, either because they don't trust the GM to treat them fairly, or because they just think he'll make a mistake, so they require, by taste, a lot of structure and circumspection of the GM's ability to engage in inadvertent wrongfun, or whatever. Rules light vs crunchy is really a proxy for this preference; or at least it's the most normal root cause of a preference for rules crunch vs rules light. I'm sure some people just really enjoy the rules for their own sake. But mostly, it's about making sure that they can get a more predictable, constant experience out of people that they don't trust to give it to them otherwise.

I think this is a valid, but incomplete analysis (which you sort of acknowledge). Making sure you and the GM are on consistently the same page is absolutely a big factor in people who like more detailed rules. But there can be other elements, too, specifically the ability to realize distinctions in character nature and action execution that otherwise would be either simply fluff or dependent on largely ad-hoc GMing decisions, both of which can be unattractive to some players.

 

[dragoner]

I get your point, but I also think it kind of distorts a lot of discussion not based around D&D being a special snowflake that deserves special consideration.

Though for this discussion, it's the crucial calibration point. Not sure if D&D needs special consideration, I know from my own experience that the farther one gets away from it, that things can vary quite a bit. Back in the mid-80's "rules heavy" was synonymous with some rules sets being "a rule for everything" and I feel most people don't want to go back to that, so the definition's overton window has shifted, to the point that it becomes necessary to ask "what game?"

 

[Arilyn]

I'd like some examples, please, of games that have mechanics that are unintentionally causing social disruptions at the table.

 

[Arilyn]

Possibly because I'm talking about two different things:

1. Games that can contribute to social problems in groups, not because they're misdesigned but because they contain design elements which are not obvious out the gate, and thus are to walk into; and

2. Games that seem to have fundamental design element problems that can be worked around, but if not will definitely cause both intrinsic problems and make certain social issues worse.

The first is not a flawed design, but may well be a flawed presentation if the designer doesn't consider some of the potential knock-on effects of some of his design elements and make them very clear. Because not everyone is good at seeing the implications of mechanics until they're in play. Both, however, are cases where the game system can very much create additional problems in some groups beyond what they routinely have, so I don't think letting game systems off the hook here is warranted.



Problematic is a word doing heavy lifting here. Does it present elements that made his problems worse? I'd have to assume so if there's a difference. Does it bring those elements to the attention of the GM and users to prepare for it? I'm not qualified to say not being a 5e player or GM.

I'm still at loss. Games usually lay out their rules, tone, and expectations. I can't think of a single rpg that could be blamed, either unintentionally or through poor design, for problems at the table.

My example player was just demonstrating that D&D is a poor fit for him. My question is rhetorical. Of course, it's not D&D's fault that he was becoming disengaged. It wasn't his preference. His preference is Fate, as well as some other games he's buying.

 

[Umbran]

Again, I'm not talking about games that simply have a fundamentally different approach than what a group wants. I'm talking about games that seem a perfectly reasonable choice but have design elements that make assumptions about their end users that, at the least, a potential leap and not spelled out, and at worst, bad design elements in general.

But you've provided only one example (from Storypath), and for that that you yourself noted wasn't a bad design element, but a potential style mismatch issue.

So, these issues are, to us, hypothetical. You've seemed to assert, but not really establish with evidence, that there's a class of bad design elements out there waiting to be pitfalls.

I come back with the following:

1) If it doesn't work as intended, even if you know how it works, that's bad design. And don't get me wrong, there are bad designs out there. I can recognize FATAL and HYBRID as just bad games. But you're talking about something more specific than that.

2) If it works as designed, but the game doesn't really tell you how it works so that you can choose to avoid it, that's a presentation issue.

3) If it works as designed, but it isn't a good choice for your group, that's a style mismatch issue.

And sure, if (2) and (3) happen at the same time, that's unfortunate, but ultimately the responsibility for making sure you know what the game does before it runs still sits with the GM.

And no, "It isn't a good choice for a large percentage for gamers" may be a valid statement, but it isn't a valid critique. Game design for a niche audience is a valid choice! It may not be a commercially viable choice, but that's between the designer and their bank account.

 

[Desdichado]

I'd like some examples, please, of games that have mechanics that are unintentionally causing social disruptions at the table.

D&D. Alignment.

 

[Faolyn]

No, but "this game is bad because it seems to create problems for a lot of groups" also gets some serious pushback. That's my point. Its very much possible for a game to do that, and not just be a mismatch of expectations.

The first question is, how do you know it creates problems for a lot of groups? If that's the criteria for "bad game" then D&D is the worst game in the history of RPGs, right?

And are you talking about a specific game, or a hypothetical game? Like, you bring up momentum and Storypath games, so I assume you mean like from Onyx Path. You say:

The kicker is, its a group resource as a default. Which is fine if you've got a group that's very well tuned to sharing spotlight and activity, but if your group runs more to the individualistic, its just asking for some people to overuse it and others to both underutilize it (to the detriment of play as a whole) and/or potentially resent the overuse of others.

I haven't played any of those games yet (I've kickstarted Curseborn, though), but from everything I've seen, having some people use it more than others is perfectly fine. Some players want their characters to succeed as often as possible and thus will spend it. Others are fine with failing. But I guess I'd have to know what you mean by "to the detriment of play as a whole" to truly understand what the problem is.

But for your next part, "potentially resent the overuse of others," again, that's a people-problem, not a game problem. Your players should have frank, mature discussions with each other. "Bob, you use momentum too much, and it means that I never have access to it when I want to use it." Then Bob can (hopefully) curb his use, or ask the group if it's OK. That's what usually happens in the Masks game I'm in. I haven't really felt like using any of Team (which is also a group resource), whereas a couple of other players use it frequently. But they usually announce it in a way that lets other players have a chance to say "hey, hold off on that for a minute, I have a plan and may need it."

 

[Umbran]

D&D. Alignment.

You know, I'll accept that one.

We can note that came in at the very early days of gaming - before "game design" was really a practice, and at this point is has largely been expunged from the current version of the system as a mechanic - it is relegated to lore these days.

 

[Desdichado]

You know, I'll accept that one.

We can note that came in at the very early days of gaming - before "game design" was really a practice, and at this point is has largely been expunged from the current version of the system as a mechanic - it is relegated to lore these days.

If you like. I meant it as an element of flippant rhetoric. True enough, but not pedantically speaking "true."