Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8397489" data-attributes="member: 71699">I've skimmed the last few pages, so apologies if I mistake your meaning here. What you describe in your last sentence captures what I have overwhelmingly experienced with rules light games. The setting (or some other premise) comes first. Rules are secondary. I want to caveat here that rules light games are ontologically a patchwork. The motives behind one rules light game may differ wildly from another, and what one such game chooses to codify another might not care about.I see that as necessarily true because of the role rules play in definition: the fewer rules, the less we can say about what game is being played. Now, one might point to crunch-light / fluff-heavy games. We've already referenced some examples. I think there one is either taking the fluff to be rules, of a sort - play this way - or where the fluff is not taken to have that weight then we are back to what I'm claiming. It might even be that a decent way to analyse rules light games is to understand their use of fluff as crunch. Including fluff in circulation outside the game.</blockquote>