Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[aramis erak]

To call a GM making a move in Apocalypse World "fudging" is quite bizarre.

There are several move related issues where the PbtA GM can be fudging...

1. in a PC's narration, the GM calling something a move that really doesn't match the move as defined.
2. selecting a GM move that is not appropriate to the existing fiction. EG: NPC is established as a pacifist, player fails on a seduction move, GM goes straight to physical harm.
3. forcing the timing of PC narrations to be faster than certain players can handle
4. ending a scene because the GM wants story control of scene framing.
5. not calling people on crossing lines/veils

Was someone arguing otherwise, such that this point needed stressing.

Like, yeah, if you pick up a power saw not knowing what you were doing, the results may vary. This is controversial?

In games discussions? Often. Many deny the impact of rules on play. Not a few have accused me of not actually roleplaying because I let players narrate third person and I don't let social be purely words...

So a rules-heavy game that can be reduced to its core elements and functionally played (because the game is elegantly designed) isn't indicative of a rules-light game. It just means that you can play it that way or design derivatives off it and it/they will still be functional (if noticeably lacking and perhaps not particularly satisfying by comparison) as vehicles of play.

I'd word that slightly differently, but basically agree, as once you start ignoring rules you are playing a variant... every bit as much as using optional rules is a variant. It may become a rules light variant.

 

[aramis erak]

I imagine your players are rules lawyers. Which I expect is the most extreme of the heavy rules people. I like a simple streamlined system but I don't mind options though players should be able to opt-in or out on complexity.

I've met more people who rules lawyer than people who admit to it.
I do rules lawyer. I don't really minmax much.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Leaning into the "meaning" I think is often going to be pretty close to mere colour, rather than fictional positioning.

That is how we approached stats in 4e D&D.

On the other hand, in our Classic Traveller game stats are also taken to establish fictional positioning, and so directly inform what actions are permissible and how they resolve (not just in mechanical terms).

Quite different ways of handling stats!

EDIT to also respond to this:
Mere colour is part of the fiction, but I'm focusing more on fictional position.

Like, in our Traveller game INT and EDU stats are taken to shape permissible action declarations, to shape resolution (independent of dice rolls - eg the ex-Navy officer with high EDU knows how to interpret naval codes). Likewise physical stats - the guy with high DEX and low STR is clearly small and wiry, and so could squeeze through the narrow space.

Sometimes stats also modify a roll in a mechanical fashion - but unlike in our 4e game, that's not all that they do.

I would like it if stats meant more to fictional positioning in classic/traditional games too, and in my games they usually do (because my players and I agree on this), but some folks really seem to have a problem with the idea, almost to the point of offense.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think any game where the GM is allowed to decide things "on a whim" is apt to be a bit fraught. In classic D&D, I would see the GM's prep as the constraint on whim. In many of the RPGs I play, there are other rules and principles that operate - prep looms less large (thought it is still a thing in some of them, especially Torchbearer 2e).

If the GM is not constrained by prep, and is not constrained by rules or principles, then I think a broader ideal of consistency might be hard to operationalise . . .

My thoughts on that are simply that as a GM, if you use prep, you should constrain yourself by it at the table. To do otherwise is IMO frankly unfair to the players.

 

[Celebrim]

Oh oh oh....I thought you meant there were certain ways players of elves are expected to roleplay their character.

I'm 100% on board with the world treating my character like an elf.

I require players to submit a backstory in D&D explaining who their character is and by extension how they expect to play that character. If the character is an elf but doesn't feel very "elfish" I will not approve the character for play. The expectation in taking a race is that you are obligated to try your best to play that race.

In practice, this isn't usually a problem. Players IME are excited to learn the settings lore and to have clear guidance on how to make playing the race richer and more distinctive. I have never had to say, "An elf wouldn't think like that." post character creation once I've had a chance to work on a player's backstory with them.

I do frequently have a problem with players want to play their character according to a different alignment than they originally choose, but I've developed techniques over the years for steering a player to change their alignment to their actual play style without getting into a table argument. I suppose I could run into a play who adamantly insists on their own alignment wheel being imposed on my setting, but it's never happened. Generally players who have very well thought out alignment wheels tend to differ only on a few details with me ("wait, slavery in your system is lawful and not evil?", "well, actually it's both which is why it's one of the big signifiers of lawful evil and the thing most opposed by chaotic good, but..."), and those who don't generally are happy to accept my judgement.

 

[Umbran]

In games discussions? Often. Many deny the impact of rules on play. Not a few have accused me of not actually roleplaying because I let players narrate third person and I don't let social be purely words...

I meant here, in this discussion.

Because otherwise, "some people" is an unverifiable assertion with characteristics the speaker gets to stipulate without challenge.

How many are in this group of "some"? How severe is their behavior? Is the speaker appropriately interpreting the behavior of these people? We don't know. Maybe we have personal experience that agrees with the speaker's assessment. Or maybe our personal experience suggests that the "some people" are overblown. Maybe "some people" is this one guy in Altoona, or something.

I personally have known some people who invoke "some people" based on one bad interaction they had recently - one person implies more in the population, and that's "some" right?. I've even known some people who make "some people" up out of whole cloth because they are more invested in winning the argument than truth.

So, rhetorically, "some people" is pretty weak, unless we agree they exist, and on their characteristics.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Following on from my post just upthread - I don't see this as about "telling people how to play their character". When we play Classic Traveller, no one tells anyone how to play their character. But it is understood by everyone that the stats reflect a "truth" about the character that is very different from what ability scores mean in 4e D&D.

Yeah, but I don't have any reason to suspect your people are particularly typical in this regard, especially in the D&D community, where how to engage with people who are playing their characters smarter or more charismatic than the numbers say they should be is a topic of conversation for a reason. Among other things, everyone being on the same page here is not universal by any stretch, and there are still plenty of people out there effectively playing in token stance.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I imagine your players are rules lawyers. Which I expect is the most extreme of the heavy rules people. I like a simple streamlined system but I don't mind options though players should be able to opt-in or out on complexity.

It probably shouldn't be surprising that among people who like heavier rule systems, that you're going to have more people that actually care about the application of the rules enough to argue them at least some times. Whether that gets to the toxic state that is implied by "rules lawyer" most of the time is more arguable (as is how far that has to get before its problematic, as some people seem to apply that to anyone who is willing to argue them at all).

 

[Thomas Shey]

There are several move related issues where the PbtA GM can be fudging...

1. in a PC's narration, the GM calling something a move that really doesn't match the move as defined.
2. selecting a GM move that is not appropriate to the existing fiction. EG: NPC is established as a pacifist, player fails on a seduction move, GM goes straight to physical harm.
3. forcing the timing of PC narrations to be faster than certain players can handle
4. ending a scene because the GM wants story control of scene framing.
5. not calling people on crossing lines/veils

I'm not sure I'd call the third or fifth there fudging; its bad procedure, but fudging has different implications, regarding changing results in a way the game system does not normally do. Neither of those strikes me as trying to put one's thumb on that scale though they both are liable to produce bad outcomes (particularly the last).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've met more people who rules lawyer than people who admit to it.
I do rules lawyer. I don't really minmax much.

I do wonder how much of a bad reputation the former has because its often associated with people doing the latter (particularly to a toxic degree).