Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[soviet]

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.

How so?

 

[Aldarc]

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.

I'm not sure if I agree with the argument that consistency of one's bias somehow removes said bias.

How so?

I don't think that rules heavy games are somehow anymore prone to fudging than rules light ones. The amount of rules is agnostic about the power relationship of the GM with the associated framework of the rules and their ability to override them, which is what ultimately matters when it comes to fudging.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand that the way that the winds are currently blowing in this hobby favors rules light games; however, I think that this can be done respectfully without crapping on rules heavy games, which seems to be a recurring pattern in this thread. I am saying this as someone who does not particularly enjoy rules heavy games.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

Crunchy rules have both advantages and drawbacks. Light rules requiring lots of freeform GM interpretation (or even player decision) have both advantages and drawbacks. Different GMs, players, and groups will prefer different combinations of crunch and freeform as their personal optimum.

My own preference runs toward crunchy rules, with an analogy I first used back in the 20th century: I want a good solid mechanic to resolve a situation in a game for much the same reason I want to use a ruler to draw a straight line. Or to invoke another analogy from the same USENET group: The quickest, easiest, and most accurate way to resolve the result of a character rolling a pair of six-sided dice is for the player to roll a pair of six-sided dice.

Now the obvious objection is that sometimes one wants freehand curves rather than straight lines, or wants inaccurate 'unrealistic' results from a given crapshoot roll by a PC. That's where the different personal optimums between crunch and freeform come in, as crunchy rules for curve-drawing or a weird 'luck' ability become harder to deal with and at some point the gamer switches to some sort of freeform ruling as the preferable option.

And despite my own preference for crunch in the rules, there are places where I put down my finger and say, "On this particular spot, the proper decision-mechanic is 'GM whim'" - or even "... player decides." For example, I've decided that I can't be satisfied with any sort of bleeding-out rule, so my house rule there is "If the character is wounded to the point of invoking RAW 'bleeding out,' the house rule is that the controlling player (the GM in the case of NPCs) decide how long it takes for the character to die - or even if they die instead of going on to ultimate recover and survive."

But for me, those sorts of exceptions are exceptions. YMMV.

 

[soviet]

I don't think that rules heavy games are somehow anymore prone to fudging than rules light ones. The amount of rules is agnostic about the power relationship of the GM with the associated framework of the rules and their ability to override them, which is what ultimately matters when it comes to fudging.

I don't know what you mean by 'prone to'. I'm talking about the text itself. I think heavier games are more likely to have an explicit 'the GM can fudge' instruction than rules light games.

I understand that the way that the winds are currently blowing in this hobby favors rules light games; however, I think that this can be done respectfully without crapping on rules heavy games, which seems to be a recurring pattern in this thread. I am saying this as someone who does not particularly enjoy rules heavy games.

I haven't 'crapped on' rules heavy games. In fact, I haven't said a single bad thing about them. MERP/Rolemaster is one of my favourite games.

 

[Umbran]

It reads like you’re saying it’s impossible to have a fair referee.

No, he isn't saying that.
He's saying that no human being is ever completely free of bias.

He's also not saying that therefore, no GM is sufficiently fair for him to trust. That's you extending his position without proper support. To then take that to "you shouldn't even play RPGs" is also unfounded, and therefore apt to come off as gatekeepingly insulting.

So, maybe rethink that approach? Thanks.

 

[Aldarc]

I think heavier games are more likely to have an explicit 'the GM can fudge' instruction than rules light games.

I'm not sure if I agree with that either. There are plenty of rules light games that are big on "Rule 0" or "Golden Rule" forms of adjudication from the GM.

I haven't 'crapped on' rules heavy games. In fact, I haven't said a single bad thing about them. MERP/Rolemaster is one of my favourite games.

Sorry. I created the line in my post to establish that this was not addressed to you but a separate thought.

 

[Celebrim]

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.

A GM can always fudge. It's just the nature of the fudging differs in different games.

I don't recognize this characterization of rules light play (or rules heavy play TBH).

Well, for one that's because it's not a characterization of "rules light play".

It's a characterization of a process of play in which rules lawyering is just one subcategory. But I own several rules light rulebooks and they tend to be up front about this process of play. One of the ones I own just advises the GM to concede anything that the players argue simply to get the game moving on, which, while I understand where that is coming from makes this sort of wheedling and argument likely to become the dominate mode of play where you to take that advice literally. It's not always directly confrontational either, as it could be a player buttering up the GM or leading a lot of propositions with "wouldn't it be cool..." sorts of arguments where the goal is to get the GM to agree to your resolution before you make it.

Rules light systems with player defined powers and abilities it takes the mode of lots of arguing for "Does my tag apply?" or "I think my tag should apply because...".

You may not have encountered it, but I've encountered it in several contexts, both among friends and at conventions. Hints of it even show up in this play through of FATE on streaming:


That I felt was one of the most dysfunctional RPG sessions I'd ever seen committed to film, but I guess it takes all types.

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

Fish don't recognize what it means to be wet either. I think the more sports you play and watch, the more obvious it is a truthful description of the game. It's one of the big reasons it's hard to convince my fellow Americans to take an interest in the sport. If the referees would throw more cards for simulation.

 

[chuckdee]

I'm not sure if I agree with the argument that consistency of one's bias somehow removes said bias.

I didn't say it removes bias. I said it removes bias as an axis of inconsistency. If someone is consistent in their rulings and that ruling includes bias, it becomes a factor of the table rather than something that is interjected randomly. Let's say that my bias is to always rule in the fashion of 'rule of cool' rather than verisimilitude. Then you can base your actions on knowing that you can get away with anything that is 'cool' and not have to worry about how realistic it is.

 

[Celebrim]

I didn't say it removes bias. I said it removes bias as an axis of inconsistency. If someone is consistent in their rulings and that ruling includes bias, it becomes a factor of the table rather than something that is interjected randomly. Let's say that my bias is to always rule in the fashion of 'rule of cool' rather than verisimilitude. Then you can base your actions on knowing that you can get away with anything that is 'cool' and not have to worry about how realistic it is.

Sure. But "cool" is a very subjective thing and what someone will consider cool varies from person to person. So "the rule of cool" very quickly makes the process of play about what discovering a) what the GM thinks is cool and catering to the GM's preference or b) doing the same thing with the dominate personality at the table if that dominate personality isn't the GM (Bob decides what is cool and everyone follows his lead).

And yes, this becomes the dominate play mode at some tables, where you just cater to what the GM thinks is cool, flatter the GM, and generally predict the GMs whims as a methodology for gaining success and spotlight because you as the player aren't given any currency in any form that lets you specify concretely how you can change the fiction. And I want to note, D&D's spells function as currency that lets you the player concretely specify how you can change the fiction with an expectation that give some text you can assert some particular change in the fiction reliably. The idea that you need some metacurrency to affect the fiction is a very limited viewpoint.

That said, "consistency" is a term that I'm noticing people are throwing around and it seems like different people have very different ideas regarding what it means to be consistent and what the term applies to. There is a strong chance people are talking past each other in using the term.

 

[Aldarc]

I didn't say it removes bias. I said it removes bias as an axis of inconsistency. If someone is consistent in their rulings and that ruling includes bias, it becomes a factor of the table rather than something that is interjected randomly. Let's say that my bias is to always rule in the fashion of 'rule of cool' rather than verisimilitude. Then you can base your actions on knowing that you can get away with anything that is 'cool' and not have to worry about how realistic it is.

Okay. Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.