Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

Thomas Shey said:

Watch threads where playing online is brought up and look at how many people find it unacceptable of have had serious trouble doing so successfully.

Click to expand...

I understand but I play online and it has gotten so much better in recent years.

Thomas Shey said:

Any number of people are manifestly uninterested in running games; even some who have done so and can don't really like it. Telling people "If you don't like how I run my game, go run your own" is, for at least a plurality of people, synonymous to showing them the door in that situation.

Click to expand...

I am all for being flexible as a GM. At the same time sometimes a person just isn’t going to enjoy what you do. So it is best in those situations to say: I understand where you are coming from but my style might not be the best fit for you

Bedrockgames said:

I’d say it is equal among all participants. In a group of six people only one is the Gm. So it’s usually what the majority want that wins

Click to expand...

Again, "want" is, I think, doing too much lifting there. There can be a lot of "we'd rather play this game even if we find this particular part fairly annoying" that goes on, so if one person is willing to make an issue of it, and most of the rest of the group either doesn't care or feels the same but doesn't want to risk the GM throwing in the towel, the GM is still going to be the one that wins that one, even if he's, in practice, the minority there.

Bedrockgames said:

I understand but I play online and it has gotten so much better in recent years.

Click to expand...

I do too, but I don't think we should assume we're more than a base majority here.

Bedrockgames said:

I am all for being flexible as a GM. At the same time sometimes a person just isn’t going to enjoy what you do. So it is best in those situations to say: I understand where you are coming from but my style might not be the best fit for you

Click to expand...

And that's entirely fair. Note a big part of my objection here is about people who read acceptance as agreement. They aren't the same and using that to make claims about how well your choices go over seems more than a little self-justifying when it happens, and I have every evidence its not uncommon.

Thomas Shey said:

I did, earlier in the chain. I've commented numerous times that people are really big about claiming "My players are fine with it" without sufficient evidence of that other than them not complaining about that (and in some cases making it clear that people complaining will be shown the door).



Nonconfrontational people may may be more prone to bringing something up by other methods than direct talk, but that doesn't mean a lot of them are still particularly likely to. And we're in a hobby where a fair number of people have been trained not to complain if they want to keep playing.

Click to expand...

Ok, what are you saying then? What's your solution to the, "my players might think I'm an awful GM but won't tell me" problem?

A rules light system doesn't have to sacrifice mechanical support for actions, and it doesn't have to be inconsistent. These are failures of design of specific systems.

Actually now that I think about it, I've had far more problems with rules heavy systems when it comes to inconsistent, non functional, or contradictory rules text that forces me to make stuff up, which was one of the primary reasons I switched in the first place.

Micah Sweet said:

Ok, what are you saying then? What's your solution to the, "my players might think I'm an awful GM but won't tell me" problem?

Click to expand...

Ask them for criticisms, things they'd like to see change, or just thinks they'd like to see (if the other two are too daunting) instead of asking if they had fun or if they liked it.

Joanna Geist said:

A rules light system doesn't have to sacrifice mechanical support for actions, and it doesn't have to be inconsistent. These are failures of design of specific systems.

Actually now that I think about it, I've had far more problems with rules heavy systems when it comes to inconsistent, non functional, or contradictory rules text that forces me to make stuff up, which was one of the primary reasons I switched in the first place.

Click to expand...

I find rules heavy often work great generally but it is the specific corner cases where they can break down more. Having a rule for everything can certainly be handy but it means you have to use that particular rule (and the bigger the system, I think the less complete the playtests of each of the more obscure rules: not saying play testing isn't done, just that the core basic mechanics will always get way more live play testing and play testing at tables once it comes out than the less used rules

Thomas Shey said:

And that's entirely fair. Note a big part of my objection here is about people who read acceptance as agreement. They aren't the same and using that to make claims about how well your choices go over seems more than a little self-justifying when it happens, and I have every evidence its not uncommon.

Click to expand...

I don't read acceptance as agreement, and I don't think there is a point in being a jerk about any of this when there is disagreement. But there is only so much one can do to decipher what a person silently not enjoying a campaign is thinking. All for having conversations, all for looking for cues. But I also don't want to feel like this is a daycare or something where the GM is constantly supposed to be checking in to make sure everyone is 100% happy with everything all the time. Maybe it is just my personality, but if I am at a table and not enjoying myself, I will even get up in the middle of a session and excuse myself politely (especially if there something that makes me physically uncomfortable like smoking for example). And if a player tells me they don't like something, I absolutely don't take offenses and won't try to convince them. I have lots of gamer friends who like some things I like but not others. For instance I have one friend who can't stand rules light games, and on the occasions when he plays rules light I am running I appreciate his presence but don't expect it. I have another who just can't stand D&D. I love D&D and would like to run it more, but most of my players aren't really into it. And one player would just tell me if I wanted to run it, thanks but I am just done playing D&D. Which is totally fine. Game groups get more dysfunctional when people make accommodations they aren't really willing to make, or when they pretend nothing is a problem, when it is.

I will also say I tend to seek out gamers that are all pretty relaxed about things. We'll kind of play anything and by any style, and just adjust to the GM and their preferred system. And if we are really not interested, we'll sit out a game or campaign. If people are going to bring drama to the table over this kind of stuff, they are gamers I would rather not game with