Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[Bill Zebub]

One of my tests is can the GM always state firmly what percentage chance of success they are giving. Not so much because I think you need to set all the stakes retroactively based on the intended chance of success, but because if the GM doesn't understand the system and math well enough to quickly compute those, then chances are they are capricious and random without intending to be so.

I think we are deriving different conclusions because we are starting from dramatically different preferences.

I don't care if a GM can "firmly state percentage chance of success" demonstrating some kind of deep mathematical understanding of the system. I want the GM to offer choices and decisions that are interesting, with non-obvious 'best' answers.

 

[Celebrim]

I think we are deriving different conclusions because we are starting from dramatically different preferences.

I'm not sure that we are.

I want the GM to offer choices and decisions that are interesting, with non-obvious 'best' answers.

You don't need rules for that, and indeed it's hard or nigh impossible to do that with rules. In my current campaign I'm using largely 2e Star Wars D6 by WEG as the rules set, but those rules don't really create any choices or decisions that are interesting in and of themselves. What's interesting is that the PC's are licensed Imperial Peacekeepers in the service of House Benelux, that is to say, they are members in good standing with the Bounty Hunter's Guild. As such, they are agents of Imperial authority - however unconventionally - and licensed and charged with doing the Empire's dirty work, capturing or killing its enemies, and cleaning up after it's messes. The interesting thing is choosing how much to stay that course knowing the Empire to be problematic at best, but also knowing the consequences of turning rogue and the rewards of earning lawful bounties. On top of that, they are often bribed by various parties to do things that aren't legal, and they have to decide what to do about that. And of course, along with that they have to conduct investigations to find their acquisitions in situations and circumstances were the normal legal authorities and military might of the Empire has failed, and that requires tons of innovation and choices. None of that really has to do with the rules.

Now there are interesting choices at the level of rules, like when do you want to spend that all powerful force point to sway the universe in your favor: do you use it to convince the informant to spill everything and so hasten the time dependent investigation, or do you preserve for a critical moment of combat when you might not survive without it? But that's not what I think you are talking about, nor is it what I consider to be particularly interesting about an RPG.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You don't need rules for that, and indeed it's hard or nigh impossible to do that with rules.

Whoah. We are speaking entirely different languages. I'll bow out. Happy gaming.

 

[pemerton]

So in summation, crunching systems better define what you can with a clearly defined rules set. While a lighter system is more up to GM fiat which fans of crunchy game really don't like. At least that is how I perceive it.

What do you think?

I think that the summarised proposition is false. It rests on assumptions about procedures and techniques of play that don't generalise very well beyond some fairly well-known RPGs.

For instance: Rolemaster is a very rules-heavy RPG. If I declare that my PC goes to the market hoping to bump into my long-lost sister; or hoping to find an angel feather for sale; what is the chances of success? How do I (as a player) even know that there is a market place for my PC to visit, or that my PC has a long-lost sister, or that angel feathers exist in the (imaginary) world? That is all up to GM fiat.

 

[R_J_K75]

So the philosophy of rules heavy games is that it is better to have everything, or at least most things defined.

From my RPG experience at the time, I think that 3E D&D is to blame for this shift. I'm not saying there weren't crunchy systems before this, but I didn't play them. I didn't see the shift in players pushing back on DM fiat until they were able to open 3.x book "x" and point to a rule that clearly defined how the situation should be handled. 5E gave a lot of power back to the DM to interpret the rules and make rulings as they see fit. Even though it's not as rules light as I'd prefer but I'd still consider 5E rules light.

I agree with your players to an extent. I suppose it depends on what you are playing. When I was a player in a 3.5 game one DM made rulings on the fly, changed rules and grossly misinterpreted them and was unwilling to budge or compromise. It got to the point where I never knew what to expect from game to game, combat to combat regardless of what the rules stated. He was trying to impose and force DM fiat into a game system that didn't really support it in most cases. It made the game very disjointed and unfun, so I eventually quit.

 

[aramis erak]

Is the problem "GM whim" or "fear of GM whim"?



Likewise I find "whim" to be an extreme characterization. In my experience GM rulings in rules-light systems are well-reasoned, and more consistent than not. "Whim" strikes me as capricious and random.

EDIT: And maybe others have experienced a more "whim-based" version of this, in which case I could understand not wanting that.

Rules Light: much of my experience with it is that every rules call feels decided by GM whim, even if it's done strictly by extant rules. The only exception has been in rotating GM, as in Cosmic Patrol.

I found, running Toon, that the rules, while limiting to genre, didn't work to make GMing easier, and my players felt that my calls were capricious; when I showed them the official SJG errata, they realized they weren't.

In having read Risus, there's nothing there of any value to me as a GM, nor as a player; I want the rules to limit the options so as to reduce analysis paralysis, and to help enforce the genre. Only a few rules light games have done that for me... Cosmic Patrol, Teenagers From Outer Space/Star Riders, GW's Judge Dredd.

I also don't like a zillion additional obligatory minigames, tho' I don't mind a few..

I like to run games that are near the middle of the GNS trigraph.

 

[Umbran]

Less rules = less consistency. There's more opportunity for conflict arguing about how something's been handled. More rules gives a black and white picture of what to expect.
...
What do you think?

I believe that less rules = less consistency is not a strong premise.

My evidence for this is Fate, and even moreso Fate Accelerated. Not a lot of rules, but the ones that are there are extremely consistent. The GM can say yes to almost every proposition that is broadly consistent with the current narrative, because they know with high certainty that doing so will not break anything.

 

[Fenris-77]

Consistency comes from following the fiction and taking the effort to adjudicate honestly and without bias. I know that works in rules light games because I do it all the time.

 

[Aldarc]

Consistency comes from following the fiction and taking the effort to adjudicate honestly and without bias. I know that works in rules light games because I do it all the time.

I tend to be somewhat skeptical of claims of judgments “without bias” whether talking about games or otherwise. GMs are sometimes referred to as “judges” or “referees” but as we know from criticism of the criminal justice system and sports, these officials are not free of their biases. I don’t imagine that human beings can somehow be without bias just because they are adjudicating a pen and paper game.

 

[PrunellaUK]

Consistency comes from following the fiction and taking the effort to adjudicate honestly and without bias. I know that works in rules light games because I do it all the time.

This. I understand there is a fear of GM caprice. The answer is for the GM not to be capricious.

And yes, I know I am being glib. GMs are human and some are worse at this than others. Yet it's the goal I aspire to.