Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[bloodtide]

No, it isn't. This take on it is reductive.
The desired consistency isn't on the story level, it is on an action level.

Like, if I try to jump a 20 chasm today, and try to jump the same width chasm tomorrow, the DC should be the same. Running a mile today, and running a mile next week under the same basic conditions should be the same sort of challenge.

The consistency is desired so that, when thinking about the "game" portion of the RPG, the player can make informed decisions. If the GM keeps changing how they adjudicate the rules, the player never knows their chances.

So to have consistency in a game, you have to repeat the same things over and over again. As soon as you do anything different, the 'game' won't be consistent

In every game the DM has to have the same 20 foot chasm transplanted to wherever the character is now, so the character can jump over it again.

Because if the next 20 foot chasm is in the Frozenfar, covered with Ice and high winds. The player should not expect the consistency of just "oh my character jumps over it...again". Though it is clearly a more difficult jump to anyone with common sense, and yet many players will refuse to see it.

So many players get stuck in this : Their character opens say ten doors in some ruins. For some reason the player now thinks the character can open every door in "some ruins" or worse, everywhere. So two more adventures on, the character is again in some ruins. But "suddenly" the character can't open the doors. The player then gets all mad as the game has no "consistency".

 

[Thomas Shey]

Except that's the case in basically any game where there's multiple choices to be made as you progress.

No. Because in most of those if you arrive at the same exact character (same stats, same skills, everything) it will have cost you the same thing.

With Storyteller there's an actual order-of-operations difference in how much the final result will cost. Someone who started with four particular skills at 3 each, and ends up with three at at 3 and one at 5 and the will cost more than someone who started out at one at 5, one at 3, and the rest at 2, even though they have exactly the same values there. Because he won't need to climb the progressive cost ladder as many times, and the initial point distribution treated a 4 and two 2's as being the same value, whereas advancement doesn't.

And not just point-based games--how often have we heard about "feat traps" for D&D and Pathfinder?

If you're going to wait around for me to compliment the way most class and level systems handle advancement, its going to be a long wait. There are exactly four of them I'll play, and they're far from my first choice.
u get nothing but hit points when you level up.

Also, "better character" is highly subjective. Is it purely the math, and one character doing more damage or having the best race/class/archetype/feat/whatever combo? That depends heavily on the game--and while (as I said) I haven't played a Storypath game, from what I've read of Curseborn, having the most "mathematically perfect" character is very much not that game's point.

The point is that two players who want exactly the same later result in those areas (or, honestly, even different areas) pay significantly different costs for the privilege, just because of how they were initially built.

But again, that's entirely on the players. The beastmaster I talked about wasn't angry or jealous of any of the other players who did more damage (she was probably angry at her dice, though). Your players need to use their words and be mature about it.

I've commented about that before; I won't bother to do so again.

(By the by, note this second example wasn't about Storypath; it was about Storyteller, the older White Wolf system (though for all I know Storypath may do the same thing, since this isn't a design flaw limited to the WW/OP ecosystem. Its a consequence of making character build linear and character progression accumulative and not seeing the consequences of that).

 

[Thomas Shey]

So many players get stuck in this : Their character opens say ten doors in some ruins. For some reason the player now thinks the character can open every door in "some ruins" or worse, everywhere. So two more adventures on, the character is again in some ruins. But "suddenly" the character can't open the doors. The player then gets all mad as the game has no "consistency".

This misrepresents what people are talking about with consistency so horrendously, I have to conclude its deliberate.

 

[Theory of Games]

 

[bloodtide]

This misrepresents what people are talking about with consistency so horrendously, I have to conclude its deliberate.

What did I miss?

What is a cosistant game?

What does a player want from a game that has consistency if it's not the same thing each time?

 

[Thomas Shey]

What did I miss?

What is a cosistant game?

What does a player want from a game that has consistency if it's not the same thing each time?

Predictability of resolution.

That doesn't even necessarily mean always the same target numbers (or whatever a given system does to modify difficulty), but simply that, when conditions are similar, probabilities are similar. If jumping the ten foot chasm is harder one day than the next, there should be some descriptive difference that explains why its different--the other side of the chasm is higher, the ground is wet, there's a really high wind--something. It shouldn't be because the GM can't be bothered to pay attention to what he did last time and is just pulling numbers out of the air.

 

[bloodtide]

Predictability of resolution.

That doesn't even necessarily mean always the same target numbers (or whatever a given system does to modify difficulty), but simply that, when conditions are similar, probabilities are similar. If jumping the ten foot chasm is harder one day than the next, there should be some descriptive difference that explains why its different--the other side of the chasm is higher, the ground is wet, there's a really high wind--something. It shouldn't be because the GM can't be bothered to pay attention to what he did last time and is just pulling numbers out of the air.

So.....somewhere is a DM that has a 10 foot chasm and they say the DC is 10, but then the next day they have a 10 foot chasm and the DM says the DC is 20.

So, it's about the casual DM that just makes up DCs on a whim.

So, then adding in The Rules, is the idea that The Rules will 'tell' the DM what the DC is all the time so the DM 'can't' just make it whatever they want.

And heavy rule systems have more rules, so a DM can always turn to page 311 and find a rule to tell them the DC.
And light rule systems just leave the DM to do whatever they want.

 

[Faolyn]

Proportion matters.

Most problems that D&D causes are generic RPG problems; they aren't things you can point at individual design to say they're why its happening. That doesn't mean there aren't some--and some are, if not unique to D&D made worse by the fact it carries a lot of expectations other games don't because of its age and footprint--but they tend to not be problems about whole classes of player so much as some choices being at least perceived as being favored/antifavored and people who like those being annoyed about that, but they aren't things that are aimed at whole broad playstyles.

So here's the next question: How do you know that the "individual design" of other games aren't present in D&D (or whatever), but you're so used to D&D (or whatever other system you consider to be good) that it no longer bothers you? I already addressed the problem with trap feats/archetypes/classes, and that's a big one--but you're probably used to them. You know what to take and what to avoid. You've seen dozens of threads or videos showing you workarounds. You know how the math works in D&D.

My group rotates GMs, and we just got to a stopping point in Masks (a PbtA game, if you didn't know) and last week just started up D&D again. And some of the issues I have with D&D came and smacked me in the face. Did I screw up when I multiclassed to Fighter? Should I take another level in Fighter next time they level up, or should I wait until after I get their next Rogue archetype ability? Did I screw up when I took a feat instead of upping stats? My character really need higher Int and Cha for class/archetype reasons, but Piercer is so good for damage as a duelist. My character and another PC (a monk) are both Dex-based with equal scores. Am I keeping up? Am I contributing as much as I can? Is that player stepping on my niche because their background or archetype or whatever gave them thieves' tools and they're better at them than I am?

Whereas for my Masks character, my biggest question is, which move should I take at my next advancement that would best explore the idea that she's losing control over her powers and turning monstrous?

I've been playing D&D since 2e, and am definitely used to it, but taking a break from the game to play and run other systems helped to really put the game in perspective.

But in either case its not a question of raw numbers so much as "how likely is this to cause problems for one or more players in a given group". And most of those are things that are visible enough at a distance with D&D at least.

I really do think it's because you're used to D&D.

But at any rate, this is 100% a player issue and 0% a system issue. If you have a player who gets angry because their build isn't as good as it could have been, or isn't as good as someone else's, then they would also get angry for any other reason, regardless of system.

Onyx Path has had some particular issues over the years as did their predecessor White Wolf, but they're far from alone; I just use them as they're an example I figure a fair number of people can be familiar with. As I noted to Umbran, there are quite a few games that have made assumptions they baked into their advancement systems that I don't think were entirely thought through as to the impact they could easily have on sociodynamics of tables.

I think the biggest problem with WoD games is that they're clearly meant to be fiction-first games but were created during the mechanics-first era, and now they're locked in because people will be annoyed if they decide to start putting out WoD books using a system that's more like Fate or PbtA.

But considering that literal decades have passed since it came out, I think they're pretty aware of what "impact" they have on tables. It's kind of silly to think they're oblivious. I think the problem is that you're trying to create a "perfect" character--whatever you're defining perfect as--in a game where your flaws and weaknesses are important.

If it doesn't occur in other games, its both, and I don't see any sensible way to argue otherwise.

There's a huge spectrum of games, with "tactical combat-focused" on one end and "completely non-violent social drama" on the other, and thousands of points between those two. There's probably other axial dimensions as well. You, or certain people at your table, are specced for games (if you'll pardon the phrase) at one point on those axes. If you play a game on a completely different part of those axes, it's not the game's fault if you bounce off it.

if you think that's common among gamers, I have to suggest you have had a very selective exposure to same. Heck, it isn't that common outside of games, I don't know why someone would expect it here.

Maybe it's not common. Maybe I'm just really lucky with my table. But is that a good reason to dismiss the idea? If you see that Bob is having problems with something, take him aside and ask him to confide in you. If you see that the table is having problems with something, start a discussion about it. Be the change, yadda yadda.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So.....somewhere is a DM that has a 10 foot chasm and they say the DC is 10, but then the next day they have a 10 foot chasm and the DM says the DC is 20.

So, it's about the casual DM that just makes up DCs on a whim.

Well...yes? If someone is literally pulling things out of the air, yes, that's not predictable. I don't think its asking too much to think about what you're doing instead of doing that. If you can't be bothered, then just use the default number and don't complain that things are always the same.

So, then adding in The Rules, is the idea that The Rules will 'tell' the DM what the DC is all the time so the DM 'can't' just make it whatever they want.

And heavy rule systems have more rules, so a DM can always turn to page 311 and find a rule to tell them the DC.
And light rule systems just leave the DM to do whatever they want.

Even a lot of light rules systems have some kind of basic target numbers or the like, and at least expect ad-hoc modifications to be based on situation, not conjured from the air.

 

[Faolyn]

Yeah, but since that's entirely non-mechanical, its also largely irrelevant to system resolution. A lot of it would be handled in general the same way in virtually any game.

No, that's almost entirely mechanics. That's literally how the system works. Roleplay until you trigger a move, then follow the move's instructions. The big difference is that in more traditional games, most of this would be handled by dice.

For example, from my Masks playbook: Moldable: When you pierce the mask of someone whose respect you crave, you can always ask “How could I gain Influence over you?”, even on a miss. Take +1 ongoing to acting on the answer.

The system requires that I use the Pierce The Mask move on someone, and that this is someone who I want to respect me. When I use that move, I get to ask a certain number of questions. Anyone can use Pierce The Mask; it's a basic move and therefore, a core part of Mask's system. Because of my playbook, I get a bonus question.

But you're not forcing a result on the PC as far as I can tell. You don't just drop a condition on a PC, or force a player to roll an entirely new resolution to suit your view.

Actually, you can.

Like, one of the Keeper moves is "separate them." That literally means physically splitting the party. I had an adventure where the PCs are exploring a "dungeon" (basically, the basement of a hospital) they knew was being mutated and altered by extradimensional forces--and at one point yes, I had the walls move and split the party.

And another Keeper move is "inflict harm, as established." As long as you establish there's something that can harm them, you're free to use that move. "Since you're fighting the monster in a room that's on fire, you're getting burned; take 1 harm." Ditto for Masks, which uses conditions instead of harm. "Because you failed on that roll to Unleash Your Powers, you're feeling pretty Insecure about yourself; mark that condition."

There are other, similar moves, like "take away some of the hunters’ stuff" and "put someone in trouble."

No, if a player rolls a 10 on Act Under Pressure, I can't say "whoops, I've decided you fail at what you're doing," in the same way that I couldn't do that to a character in any game if they succeed on a roll. And I wouldn't have any need to force a player to roll something else to "suit my view" because that's not the point of, well, any RPGs. Or at least, that would be a pretty $(!#& thing to do to players just "to suit my view"

The fact that player moves are finite, doesn't mean they aren't broad. Many general MotW Moves cover a lot of potential ground--but by that fact, they also mean that surprises that don't fit their expectations are unlikely to be mechanical in nature; the mechanical tools are all right there and pretty visible. That's a pretty different beast to a RNR GM who is free and expected to pull such things out of the air at need.

That's pretty untrue. A lot of the rolls in PbtA games are there to establish the fiction. If the player is trying to maneuver the fiction in a specific way and fails a roll, that's a pretty mechanical way to have a surprise. The only place that I can think of where what you're saying is true is if you feed false information on a failed roll in other games and things like that--which isn't going to be a surprise to those players unless you're also rolling all of their dice to them.