Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[Bill Zebub]

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.

A risk of rules-light is capricious GMs. Don't play with capricious GMs.

A risk of rules-heavy is rules lawyers. Don't play with rules lawyers.

 

[overgeeked]

A risk of rules-light is capricious GMs. Don't play with capricious GMs.

All RPGs have a risk of capricious referees. More rules don’t reduce that risk.

A risk of rules-heavy is rules lawyers. Don't play with rules lawyers.

Reason enough to never play rules-heavy games.

 

[Celebrim]

All RPGs have a risk of capricious referees. More rules don’t reduce that risk.

No amount of rules can stop a GM from being bad, but one of the two most important ways a well-intentioned GM can limit his ability to achieve his own preferences is adherence to the rules. Without adherence to the rules, even a well-intentioned GM is likely simply prioritizing his own preferences for how he thinks the story should go over any other outcome. I realize that there are GMs on the board who will happily claim that good GMs do in fact make games come out how they want as a theory of gaming - the GM always knows better than the dice or the rules - but then that makes a virtue out of being capricious and following the GM's whim.

Reason enough to never play rules-heavy games.

Rules lawyering is just a specific example of a general process of metagaming where a player attempts to get what they want by wheedling and brow beating the GM into agreement. This process of play where some non-play out of game activity is primarily how things are resolved is not at all limited to rules-heavy games and is indeed IMO worse in rules light games that heavily depend on GM whim and fiat decisions. Since the referee in such games is so powerful, then the process of play often comes down to manipulating the GM in some fashion if you want to get what you want. You either "rizz" the GM into giving you what you want because he thinks it is cool, or else you browbeat and negotiate with the GM until they give up and give you what you want.

A non-RPG example would be the sport of soccer which is historically rules light in its laws governing the game with a very powerful referee that was historically not subject to review and with broad latitude in interpreting the law, with the result that a very large part of the game at the highest levels is flopping and browbeating the referee in attempts to influence their decisions through trickery or rhetoric.

 

[soviet]

No amount of rules can stop a GM from being bad, but one of the two most important ways a well-intentioned GM can limit his ability to achieve his own preferences is adherence to the rules. Without adherence to the rules, even a well-intentioned GM is likely simply prioritizing his own preferences for how he thinks the story should go over any other outcome. I realize that there are GMs on the board who will happily claim that good GMs do in fact make games come out how they want as a theory of gaming - the GM always knows better than the dice or the rules - but then that makes a virtue out of being capricious and following the GM's whim.

This isn't about the amount of rules that exist but the weight they carry - i.e. can the GM fudge. If the rules can be unilaterally overridden by one participant, they have no value in limiting that participant's control over play. Rules heavy games are much more likely to allow fudging than rules light games are. In fact, some light games make it impossible.

Rules lawyering is just a specific example of a general process of metagaming where a player attempts to get what they want by wheedling and brow beating the GM into agreement. This process of play where some non-play out of game activity is primarily how things are resolved is not at all limited to rules-heavy games and is indeed IMO worse in rules light games that heavily depend on GM whim and fiat decisions. Since the referee in such games is so powerful, then the process of play often comes down to manipulating the GM in some fashion if you want to get what you want. You either "rizz" the GM into giving you what you want because he thinks it is cool, or else you browbeat and negotiate with the GM until they give up and give you what you want.

I don't recognise this characterisation of rules light play (or rules heavy play TBH).

A non-RPG example would be the sport of soccer which is historically rules light in its laws governing the game with a very powerful referee that was historically not subject to review and with broad latitude in interpreting the law, with the result that a very large part of the game at the highest levels is flopping and browbeating the referee in attempts to influence their decisions through trickery or rhetoric.

I don't recognise this description of professional football at all.

 

[soviet]

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.

Thanks!

Yes, Burning Wheel sits oddly in this schema. It's kind of like a rules light game wearing a heavy overcoat.

 

[Theory of Games]

Something just bounced off a mountain triggering a 11. earthquake.

Oh, wait. My mistake. Someone just dropped their Burning Wheel core book.

 

[soviet]

Something just bounced off a mountain triggering a 11. earthquake.

Oh, wait. My mistake. Someone just dropped their Burning Wheel core book.

FR I'm scared to handle my copy of Burning Empires because the binding feels like it's gonna give way

 

[PrunellaUK]

I don't recognise this description of professional football at all.

As a regular at White Hart Lane* nor do I. It does resemble the arguments of some rugger fans I know.

* Yeah, I know it's not called that now, but old habits die hard.

 

[chuckdee]

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 without bias can be informed by the other word in the statement - consistency. Rulings will be biased based on play style and a variety of other factors, just as humans. But once that baseline is established, consistency removes bias as an axis, IMO.

 

[Aldarc]

This isn't about the amount of rules that exist but the weight they carry - i.e. can the GM fudge. If the rules can be unilaterally overridden by one participant, they have no value in limiting that participant's control over play. Rules heavy games are much more likely to allow fudging than rules light games are. In fact, some light games make it impossible.

I don't recognise this characterisation of rules light play (or rules heavy play TBH).

To be honest, soviet, I don't recognize your characterization of rules light and rules heavy games either. I think that you are being pretty uncharitable in how you talk about rules heavy games.