Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[Thomas Shey]

I'll take the wikipedia definition: letter of the law without the spirit, in order to gain advantage. Especially since rules lawyers rarely bring up rules that would be detrimental to them.

I have to note this depends on the game culture they worked under. I've played with groups that some people would call horrible rules lawyers, but we were also extremely insistent on making sure it applied when it didn't work for us, to.

Honestly, people will only argue them when its to their benefit are, at best, not any good at looking at the game as a whole, and at their worst just selfish. Rules are just their method of expressing that, but its not really about the rules for them.

(Its possible to think that the rules as written are undesirably punitive to PCs, but there's a time and place for that discussion; if you only wait for it to bite you to complain (at least after the first time when you simply may not know it well enough) there's a problem.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

In my personal experience, which I get is just my own, most people are good at navigating this. But I also avoid playing with people I wouldn't hang out with, where there are personality clashes.

If I'd only every played with people I never had personality clashes with, I doubt I'd have ever played at all. Any further responses I had to this post would just elaborate on my opinion your experience is anything but the common one.

 

[Thomas Shey]

All I can tell you here is I find Q&A in practice to be very fluid and non-disruptive. Part of that is I am sure, due to it being an extension of the GM describing things. The other part is, if you are playing this kind of game, you are less likely to be overly concerned about the fine details of what 'hard' means. Eventually everyone in the group gets on the same page pretty quickly just by being familiar with one another (If I am playing this way for a while with a particular GM, I eventually intuit pretty well what 'hard' means to him or her). But I am also not fretting over it. I don't need the precise number on a scale of 1-10 in terms of difficulty. But I honestly find, this has never been a problem. I think maybe once in years of doing this, have I felt like the GM's description mislead me in a choice. And most GMs I play with will be reasonable if they do something like give you a boneheaded description that results in catastrophe

Well, this sort of turns it into a tautology: "People who prefer rules light games aren't as likely to feel a need to care about rules" is kind of, well, yeah; the question is what happens when someone does, beyond "Go away."

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think you have a responsibility to voice your problems or find another group in these situations.

I think if you pay attention to fora and other places, you'll find "find another group" is, for many people, the opposite of easy. And asking non-confrontational people (which the hobby has plenty of) to always voice their problems, is fundamentally just not something that's going to happen.

People aren't mind readers, they can't know what you are thinking. I do get sometimes people are reticent to speak, so the GM and other players should also be mindful of any cues that someone isn't engaged and is having issues (I sometimes check with people to see if that is the case). But also if it is just one guy, and everyone else is enjoying themselves, they shouldn't rework everything they are doing just for him. That doesn't make at all

No, of course not. But as I said, I've seen groups where one person actively had problems with things and said so, two others did and didn't, and two other people didn't care, but the GM seemed to think everyone was good with it expect the first person. And they only thought so because he was the only one to actively said so, and the GM wanted to believe what he was doing was popular with the group rather them liking other elements of it and them just willing to tolerate what the first play objected to.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think if you pay attention to fora and other places, you'll find "find another group" is, for many people, the opposite of easy. And asking non-confrontational people (which the hobby has plenty of) to always voice their problems, is fundamentally just not something that's going to happen.




No, of course not. But as I said, I've seen groups where one person actively had problems with things and said so, two others did and didn't, and two other people didn't care, but the GM seemed to think everyone was good with it expect the first person. And they only thought so because he was the only one to actively said so, and the GM wanted to believe what he was doing was popular with the group rather them liking other elements of it and them just willing to tolerate what the first play objected to.

Well, what's the alternative? If folks won't voice their concerns, why should the GM assume they have them?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, what's the alternative? If folks won't voice their concerns, why should the GM assume they have them?

Because there's an intrinsic power imbalance, and its not super-hard to figure out which people are non-confrontational?

I mean, you can argue he can be neutral about it instead, but I don't think its too much to make some extra effort to find out if people are genuinely fine with what you're doing before you assume they are and tell other people they are. It might be hard to do, but nobody every said being a good GM was easy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because there's an intrinsic power imbalance, and its not super-hard to figure out which people are non-confrontational?

I mean, you can argue he can be neutral about it instead, but I don't think its too much to make some extra effort to find out if people are genuinely fine with what you're doing before you assume they are and tell other people they are. It might be hard to do, but nobody every said being a good GM was easy.

Who said anything about telling other people how they feel or think? Make it clear anyone can come you via any method with which they feel comfortable (text, email, separate room, whatever). Otherwise you are assuming.

 

[dragoner]

I won't speak up a lot times, if I don't like a game, or GM, I will simply not play it, or with them. Not worth the hassle.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think if you pay attention to fora and other places, you'll find "find another group" is, for many people, the opposite of easy. And asking non-confrontational people (which the hobby has plenty of) to always voice their problems, is fundamentally just not something that's going to happen.

Back in the day you used to have to physically go out and find people to game with. Now you can find folks just by posting online. I am not saying it is as easy as flipping a switch but it isn't an insurmountable task.

The only way for the GM to know if people have issues is for them to voice them, or for the GM to ask and see.

No, of course not. But as I said, I've seen groups where one person actively had problems with things and said so, two others did and didn't, and two other people didn't care, but the GM seemed to think everyone was good with it expect the first person. And they only thought so because he was the only one to actively said so, and the GM wanted to believe what he was doing was popular with the group rather them liking other elements of it and them just willing to tolerate what the first play objected to.

Okay, so this GM might not be that perceptive, but also, the folks who are not enjoying themselves should just say something or find a group with a GM that doesn't bother them. They can also offer to run sessions for the group themselves (this honestly is one of the best solutions because I find when you have groups where more than one person GMs, you get a range of perspectives and styles that is helpful)

 

[Bedrockgames]

Who said anything about telling other people how they feel or think? Make it clear anyone can come you via any method with which they feel comfortable (text, email, separate room, whatever). Otherwise you are assuming.

Most GMs will be open to concerns by a variety of means. At the same time, I have to admit, I don't really have time for people who are into creating drama or conflict. So I think while there can definitely be problem GMs and people are wise to not game with them, there are problem players and that is another factor here