Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[pemerton]

I'm reminded of a thread a few months back about the impact of removing any sort of racial mechanics or benefits from race/species/ancestry in a hypothetical 5e variation; one of the hinge points of that discussion was "Does the fictional positioning of a particular race (such as an elf being able to enter the hidden Elfhome refuge) count as some kind of racial benefit?"

Now, that's an argument among D&D players that I feel could easily bog down in many many pages of not getting very far!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is being a wood elf or having 7 INT an element of fictional position?

A lot of disagreement about how D&D should be played (not all of it) seems to result from the fact that different people answer those questions differently!

As I see it, the general trend - but not a universal one - is to treat stats in D&D as mechanical only and not part of the fiction at all (so INT 7 has no more meaning than take a -2 penalty on INT-based rolls); and to treat race/species as not part of fictional position, but as a combo of mere colour ("I'm a wood elf - I have pointy ears") and mechanics ("I'm a wood elf - the falling rain drops give me the cover I need to invoke the hiding rules").

Once it is agreed that something is a component of fictional position, then it constraints actions. Not just physical location - though in D&D play that often looms very large - but what a character is holding/wielding/wearing, what language they're speaking, perhaps what some other character's attitude is towards them, etc.

Wow. I never saw those things as just mechanics. They're always part of the fiction and matter in that context.

 

[payn]

On consistency, I think I'm a bit of an outlier. But am happy to discuss more and work out if that's really the case.

Some of what is being said about consistency - say, damage dice for weapons and spells; or similar DCs for similar tasks - seems to me to not really get above the level of playing the game by the rules. So I don't see that so much as a virtue for a GM but more like the minimum required to actually play a game together.

Perhaps there are a lot of "games" out there that don't, or that barely, reach that threshold? In which case maybe I'm being too cavalier in regard to it.

But anyway, some of the other things being said about consistency - say, how draconians will work - seem to me to apply mostly to puzzle-solving play. (Eg the players are expected to work out that this particular monster type poses this particular challenge, and then to use that knowledge to help defeat the monster.)

But if we move to another play paradigm, then there's no particular reason why things have to work out the same every time. Eg maybe this time, when the monster dies, the GM spends a resource (eg a die from the Doom Pool) to generate and impose a particular consequence, like that the monster explodes. Of course it should follow from the fiction in some sense, if the game is to be fun and coherent as a shares fiction; but that seems a weaker and more pliable constraint that what some are saying about consistency.

Perhaps I'm missing something, or misunderstanding?

I agree that some things, like the weapon damage example, are just routine parts of a game. If they are adjusted, there ought to be a consistent way its done. One way is DR where certain types bypass the resistance, and the resistance and/or immunity works in the same application across the game.

Your doom die example seems consistent to me in that there is a process for the GM to make a monster explode on death. The GM understands it, and as a player I can come to understand it. However, if a GM is just deciding on a whim that X exploding monster does random damage, and Y monster does a different amount off of different conditions, then it gets into inconsistency territory. Where the rulings are more wild west then informed and guided by any system foundation, it becomes inconsistent.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

That's an interesting take.

On a vaguely parallel case, RuneQuest 1 and 2e were not what I'd call rules-light games by any stretch. But the core of them was peeled back and presented in the old Worlds of Wonder set as "Basic Roleplaying", and as I recall that book was all of 16 pages. Even with the add-on from Magic World in the same set it was only about 32 pages, after adding in a simple magic system and some monster specs. Because that was the core of the system and was still functional in that form.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But if we move to another play paradigm, then there's no particular reason why things have to work out the same every time. Eg maybe this time, when the monster dies, the GM spends a resource (eg a die from the Doom Pool) to generate and impose a particular consequence, like that the monster explodes. Of course it should follow from the fiction in some sense, if the game is to be fun and coherent as a shares fiction; but that seems a weaker and more pliable constraint that what some are saying about consistency.

Perhaps I'm missing something, or misunderstanding?

No, but I think there's some resistance to "it should follow from the fiction in some sense" or at least that that fictional position should should be visible in some fashion. As per my discussion about jumping, if leaping across the 10' chasm has different DCs at one time and another, there should be some discernible reason for it, and the "discernible" part of that seems to be a sticking point for at least one poster in this thread.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Wow. I never saw those things as just mechanics. They're always part of the fiction and matter in that context.

I tends to climb right up against the "telling people how to play their character" question, and with a lot of people and groups that's very, very fraught.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I tends to climb right up against the "telling people how to play their character" question, and with a lot of people and groups that's very, very fraught.

To my mind, you choose to play an elf, you are subject to the in-fiction consequences of being an elf. That's all there is to it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

As I see it, the general trend - but not a universal one - is to treat stats in D&D as mechanical only and not part of the fiction at all (so INT 7 has no more meaning than take a -2 penalty on INT-based rolls);

I happen to mostly agree with that (see below) but I don't know if I would call it a general trend. Certainly in this forum there is vehement disagreement.

My own caveat to that statement is that the stats are strictly mechanical only in the sense that it's the only aspect enforceable by the GM. But certainly the player is free to...and maybe even encouraged to...lean into the 'meaning' of those stats.

 

[Bill Zebub]

To my mind, you choose to play an elf, you are subject to the in-fiction consequences of being an elf. That's all there is to it.

Can you offer some illustrative examples of "in-fiction consequences of being an elf"?

 

[Thomas Shey]

To my mind, you choose to play an elf, you are subject to the in-fiction consequences of being an elf. That's all there is to it.

Yeah, but you're not everyone and this is an area where there's a variety of priorities.