Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[Fenris-77]

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.

I think you're trying to apply some kind of academic standard of objectivity to a topic that doesn't require it. Or, perhaps more pointedly, it feels like you're aiming at 'technically correct' (no offense meant). The fact that human judgement probably cannot be entirely and completely without bias in some overall sense doesn't mean that it can't be generally and in all important ways free of bias in terms of something like adjudicating an RPG.

 

[PrunellaUK]

I think you're trying to apply some kind of academic standard of objectivity to a topic that doesn't require it. Or, perhaps more pointedly, it feels like you're aiming at 'technically correct' (no offense meant). The fact that human judgement probably cannot be entirely and completely without bias in some overall sense doesn't mean that it can't be generally and in all important ways free of bias in terms of something like adjudicating an RPG.

It feels to me that this is one of those standards, like 'suspension of disbelief', that it hard to quantify or define. It's largely down to the skill of the storyteller, the GM, whether they pull it off or not. Does the group buy it, or not?

 

[Aldarc]

I think you're trying to apply some kind of academic standard of objectivity to a topic that doesn't require it. Or, perhaps more pointedly, it feels like you're aiming at 'technically correct' (no offense meant). The fact that human judgement probably cannot be entirely and completely without bias in some overall sense doesn't mean that it can't be generally and in all important ways free of bias in terms of something like adjudicating an RPG.

No offense may have been meant but offense was nevertheless taken. I don’t agree with your assessment here but it’s not a hill that I think is worth dying on, especially given your accusations here that I am just looking to be technically correct and applying some unreasonable academic criteria to objectivity. If you don’t mean to offend when you say these things while still saying them, then I certainly don’t want to get dragged into a heated discussion when you do. Have a good day.

 

[Fenris-77]

No offense may have been meant but offense was nevertheless taken. I don’t agree with your assessment here but it’s not a hill that I think is worth dying on, especially given your accusations here that I am just looking to be technically correct and applying some unreasonable academic criteria to objectivity. If you don’t mean to offend when you say these things while still saying them, then I certainly don’t want to get dragged into a heated discussion when you do. Have a good day.

The idea that because pure objectivity is impossible that reasonable levels of objectivity cannot be attainted isn't terribly helpful to the topic at hand. How you feel about that is up to you, I'm just talking about the idea, not how you feel about it.

 

[overgeeked]

Every RPG will inevitably have the referee making calls. It’s literally impossible to have a rules heavy game with a rule for everything. And despite some saying that’s exactly what they want, we all know such a game would be completely unplayable. Rules light games, however, can and often do manage to have a rule for everything in the form of broadly applicable resolution mechanics.

Step One. Trust your referee to do their best.

Step Two. Accept that, just like you, they are human and will make mistakes.

Step Three. If you think a given referee makes honestly capricious calls, not just calls you disagree with or don’t like, don’t play with them.

Step Four. If that leaves you with zero referees to play with, it’s a you problem.

 

[PrunellaUK]

Every RPG will inevitably have the referee making calls. It’s literally impossible to have a rules heavy game with a rule for everything. And despite some saying that’s exactly what they want, we all know such a game would be completely unplayable. Rules light games, however, can and often do manage to have a rule for everything in the form of broadly applicable resolution mechanics.

Step One. Trust your referee to do their best.

Step Two. Accept that, just like you, they are human and will make mistakes.

Step Three. If you think a given referee makes honestly capricious calls, not just calls you disagree with or don’t like, don’t play with them.

Step Four. If that leaves you with zero referees to play with, it’s a you problem.

Agreed. My only (very minor) comment would be that if a GM is being capricious, feed back to them. Of course, not all GMs take feedback well. If they blow up at you at least you know where you stand.

 

[Aldarc]

Every RPG will inevitably have the referee making calls. It’s literally impossible to have a rules heavy game with a rule for everything. And despite some saying that’s exactly what they want, we all know such a game would be completely unplayable. Rules light games, however, can and often do manage to have a rule for everything in the form of broadly applicable resolution mechanics.

Step One. Trust your referee to do their best.

Step Two. Accept that, just like you, they are human and will make mistakes.

Step Three. If you think a given referee makes honestly capricious calls, not just calls you disagree with or don’t like, don’t play with them.

Step Four. If that leaves you with zero referees to play with, it’s a you problem.

None of this, IMHO, contradicts what I said. I can follow Steps 1 through 4 while also believing that no referee or judge is "without bias." It doesn't mean that they are being capricious or that I have trust issues either.

Edit: For me, saying that it's not possible to be a GM "without bias," is also about having the humility to acknowledge my own limitations and shortcomings as a GM. There will be mistakes that I make. There will be things that I miss. Even if I am trying to be fair and objective, I may have my own prejudices that affect my rulings. I will likely adjudicate things across the course of a campaign differently than another person even if both of us are trying our best to be fair.

 

[pemerton]

I think the difference is mostly one of philosophy.

To my mind in a rules heavy game the rules themselves seek to channel the gameworld, such that engaging with them is the same as engaging with the fiction directly. I'm thinking here of Rolemaster/MERP, where you select how to split your combat bonus between attack and defence, and things like that. There will be a bunch of detail about positioning and modifiers because we want to see and incorporate the various factors that could have an influence on the outcome.

In a rules light game the users are expected to provide that kind of input themselves. Not just expected to, they are assumed to want to provide that input. The job of the rules is to channel the group's idea of the fiction, to allow those inputs to be fed into the machine and an outcome determined. So the users may decide what the stakes are, what the difficulty is, and then consult the game engine to determine the result. That result can be just as determinative as in a rules heavy game (often moreso).

In both cases the rules are not a 'necessary evil' but a key and valued part of play. Games where the rules are just a necessary evil, to be disregarded, fudged, or skipped over as quickly as possible, have no value.

Such a good post!

The last sentence is true. So is the first full paragraph (I say as someone who played mostly Rolemaster for 19 years). And the second full paragraph is great.

There can even be rules-heavy games that work a bit more like your description of rules-light games - eg Burning Wheel and Torchbearer.

 

[Umbran]

I don’t imagine that human beings can somehow be without bias just because they are adjudicating a pen and paper game.

Agreed. Humans don't do "without bias". They can do "honest attempt to be as fair as they can" and that has to be good enough.

Combine that with a ruleset that does not allow oversized results from any particular action resolution, and you can come out just fine, even if there's a little bias.

 

[overgeeked]

None of this, IMHO, contradicts what I said. I can follow Steps 1 through 4 while also believing that no referee or judge is "without bias." It doesn't mean that they are being capricious or that I have trust issues either.

Edit: For me, saying that it's not possible to be a GM "without bias," is also about having the humility to acknowledge my own limitations and shortcomings as a GM. There will be mistakes that I make. There will be things that I miss. Even if I am trying to be fair and objective, I may have my own prejudices that affect my rulings. I will likely adjudicate things across the course of a campaign differently than another person even if both of us are trying our best to be fair.

It reads like you’re saying it’s impossible to have a fair referee. If that’s the case, I’m not sure RPGs are a good fit as a hobby considering you as a player have to trust the referee to be fair for any of this to work. If you’re not saying it’s impossible, then it reads like you’re regularly pointing out that a tomato is a fruit and while it’s technically correct it’s also utterly irrelevant.