Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[Golden age Superhero]

Agreed. A lot of this is in the execution.

I think the key point for me is that I reject the OP's assertion that simple is less consistent, and any assumption that it's qualitatively inferior. My years of experience in both wargaming and roleplay says otherwise. I've personally found many examples where simpler mechanics get to the nub of things more efficiently and effectively.

However, as Mr. Selfridge said: "The customer is always right, in matters of taste."

I entirely understand the player who wants more complexity, more process; the player who finds joy in the confines of a simulationist rules system. To that person I say: "Yours is a hard road, little priest." They travel a different path from me.

Having played more systems than I care to count over the last 43 years, I have ambled away from simulationism. Give me the storytelling-focused system. Give me lower rules overhead. Get me to decisions points faster, without lots of tedious make-work in the form of die rolls. I want narrative. Remove anything that encumbers or prevents me mainlining that sweet, sweet story.

I should note that the part about the key point was from the guy that left my group when I stated that I preferred rules light games.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Table arguments are a social issue; not a rules issue.

"Table arguments" might have been the wrong choice of works because it implies contention. But I have seen, so many times, the game grind to a halt as rules get looked up and the exactly applicability to the current situation debated. And then it comes down to the GM deciding which interpretation makes the most sense. So it all ends up with DM fiat, anway.

Now, I still get that some people prefer trying to cover as many cases as possible with rules (and just an aesthetic preference for complex rules in general). That's totally valid. But I don't think the stated pros and cons of the two extremes are really that clear cut.

 

[Celebrim]

"Table arguments" might have been the wrong choice of works because it implies contention. But I have seen, so many times, the game grind to a halt as rules get looked up and the exactly applicability to the current situation debated. And then it comes down to the GM deciding which interpretation makes the most sense. So it all ends up with DM fiat, anyway.

In this case though, the DM fiat is still subject to the rules and the DM fiat is creating a case law that can be appealed to and which is precedent setting. "Rulings" in this sense just means "common law" rather than statutory. There are still reasons to prefer that to whim.

But I don't think the stated pros and cons of the two extremes are really that clear cut.

Perhaps, but mostly because I think the two extremes rarely exist. They are mostly hypothetical constructs useful for board arguments about RPG ideology with very few concrete examples. Reality at a table is rarely so ideologically pure.

 

[Bill Zebub]

In this case though, the DM fiat is still subject to the rules and the DM fiat is creating a case law that can be appealed to and which is precedent setting. "Rulings" in this sense just means "common law" rather than statutory. There are still reasons to prefer that to whim.

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

Perhaps, but mostly because I think the two extremes rarely exist. They are mostly hypothetical constructs useful for board arguments about RPG ideology with very few concrete examples. Reality at a table is rarely so ideologically pure.

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.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

Yeah, my experience is it isn't a whimsical thing. The basic difference between learning on rulings in specific cases and establishing agreed upon 'common law' is the later ultimately leads to rules heavy. And part of the reason why people want the rulings is it makes the game more agile in terms of responding to different things the players might want to do. I find in most instances it ins't so much the GM asserting some kind of authoritative whim on the players, more often it is the Gm hearing an unusual request from a player and saying "Okay, I am thinking we resolve that with a STR roll followed by an attack roll; does that sound good?" (and the conversation might get more involved depending on the thing the player wants to do, but the point of the ruling is to better help players realize what it is they want their character to do (doesn't mean you say yes to everything, but you need to have the player's receptiveness and trust for it to work)

 

[Celebrim]

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

GMs whim becomes a problem when you get burned by it, regardless of the system. Personally, I think people often draw the conclusion that was the system's fault when it was the GM's fault, but if a system gives too few guidelines or bad guidelines (side eyes 4e skill challenges, all of the classic White Wolf colon games era, and most of FATE's core system) then maybe it's the system.

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.

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.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

This may sound like a trivial observation, but I do not see that there is any consistent philosophical difference beyond the obvious one:

A good rules-heavy game make a game fun for people who like rules. A good rules-light game makes the game fun for people who don't want enjoy engaging with rules.

A slight caveat -- I actually like both styles, so I am always down for a paragon-tier D&D 4E game with all the feats and classes available, but it's a very different sort of fun from playing Kids on Bikes.

I really don't see much in similar in philosophy between various rules heavy games that I have played. For example:

D&D 4E was fun because you could spend days building characters to a specific plan (e.g. "the most drow-y drow ever" or "paladin of theft") and then explore how that plays out mechanically. Appeals to the builder / tinkerer / designer in me.

Fate Mindjammer was fun because it created a huge set of examples of how to enhance Fate with rules to simulate a far-future galactic-level civilization. So many options and ideas. This appealed to the simulationist in me -- I can run the world of Iain Bank's Culture with rules for every bit I might need.

I also find the argument that lots of rules facilitate simulationist-style games. Like others in this thread, I find that they allow more consistency, but frankly, that consistency is not necessarily great for reaslism. D&D's hit points are an excellent example - very consistent use, completely unable to map to anything vaguely realistic. For me, a game with minimal rules, perfectly adjudicated, would be the best at simulating reality. Base Fate, with a GM who could perfectly define the difficulty of any task would do much better than all the rules in a complex game. Rules-heavy simulationist games help the GM make those adjudications, or define sub-systems to let the GM know how to handle a scenario.

 

[chuckdee]

I have spent most of my gaming life defending Hero System. It's true that character creation can take a lot of time but the actual game play is usually not that bad.

Same with Rolemaster, honestly. The struggle is in creation and leveling. For players after that point it's gravy. And the GM too if they are organized.

 

[chuckdee]

No I don't think this is true at all. FATE, Dogs, Apocalypse World and others are all rules light games where the mechanics strongly underpin and drive play.

Fate isn't really Rules-lite. Rules-medium at best. Fate Accelerated is a different beast.

 

[Celebrim]

I also find the argument that lots of rules facilitate simulationist-style games. Like others in this thread, I find that they allow more consistency, but frankly, that consistency is not necessarily great for reaslism. D&D's hit points are an excellent example - very consistent use, completely unable to map to anything vaguely realistic. For me, a game with minimal rules, perfectly adjudicated, would be the best at simulating reality.

Regardless of the merits of the conclusion, which I'm still pondering, I find this argument and example internally contradictory. Hit points are not an example of D&D being rules heavy or simulationist. Hit points are an example of D&D being rules light and abstract, which is why they often drive people nuts who want consistent process simulation in an RPG. And if D&D's hit points can't in fact map to anything vaguely realistic (which I would argue they can), then neither can any rules light abstraction and your whole argument about minimal abstract rules and perfect adjudication is undermined to the point that I can't see how it could stand.

I therefore don't think the hit point proves that consistency isn't necessarily great for realism, even though I can imagine consistency that isn't great for realism and do agree that they are not congruent.

I would also argue that a GM who could perfectly adjudicate the difficulty of any task (presumably "vaguely realistic") would be frequently unable to translate that adjudication into legal FATE fortunes, given the lack of granularity provided by the FATE fortune mechanic and how cumbersome it is. And of course, no such perfect GM exists especially when confronted with a challenge unexpectedly. (Rulings are often like comebacks - you often think of perfect one far after you've committed to one you regret.) I pointed this out earlier when I mentioned that FATE leaves you pretty ill equipped to run Camlann or Crecy with the PC's as role-players in the outcome of the battle, and it's precisely this lack of specific expertise in a subject even more so than whether you theoretically could do so within the system that I was thinking of. A system that doesn't specify how to run a minigame for a particular type of seen relies entirely on the judgment and expertise of the GM regarding that field of endeavor, and just hopes the GM is sufficiently good to handle such out of the box play. This later area seems to be something we both agree on.