Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[Thomas Shey]

I dunno - it seems to me that I could just as equally make this diagnosis about treasure in classic D&D:

I think that's not an unsound argument, but the difference there is usually distribution is done in downtime, and inequalities are extremely obvious to everyone concerned. The cases where it tended to be a problem was mostly magic items, since they were chunky, of varying value, and came in small numbers (of course they were often also what really mattered to people). But if nothing else it would be pretty obvious even after the fact, and not done on the fly. But its absolutely the same kind of problem.

Its to be noted that outside of the D&D sphere, things like magic item distribution are pretty rare, so this is unlikely to be much of an issue. It either ends up being a very heavily group dependent decision, or its impact is pretty low (there's a discussion bearing on that regarding PF2e right now elsewhere on this board).

it is generally encountered/obtained as a group resource (the party defeats some NPCs, or explores a room, and finds some treasure), but then has to be divided up and used individually (I'm thinking especially of magic items here), and that can work out poorly at some tables (eg there is resentment at who gets what for their PC; or everyone agrees that the mage should get the wand, but then subsequently the mage player doesn't use the wand very cleverly, to the detriment of the whole party).

Well, that's liable to bear on a different set of problems, which is individual players who seem unable or unwilling to hold up their part of the game; the wand is just a reflection of that, since no one else could likely use it anyway. A better example is a magic sword; probably there are multiple characters who can use that, so someone getting it and then making poor use might have a not-dissimilar mechanic.

Of course the difference is, assuming older versions of D&D, a lot of magic swords and other items will come along, and its going to be pretty obvious if the same character gets all of them (and can't even really use a second magic sword as such). As I mentioned, its also not usually going to be an on-the-fly decision.

Any game with group dynamics, or that requires groups to make decisions that ramify out through individual decisions that then feed back into the group experience, could raise the issue you describe here.

As I've explained, I think some are more fraught than others, though.

It seesm to me that if the game makes clear that it is a group game - which really just about any RPG does by labelling itself a RPG - then it has given the relevant "warning".

Can't really agree. Because lots of games have relatively little that has this sort of "splitting up a limited pot" elements, especially on the fly.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I can't comment on Monster of the Week, which I know only by reputation - but what you say here is not true of Apocalypse World, for at least two reasons:

* If a player declares an action for their PC that hands the GM a golden opportunity, then the GM can respond with as hard and direct a move as they like - and that hard move may have a mechanical/rules-defined component to it (eg inflict harm; make the player change their gear list; take a penalty forward; etc);​

​

They can do that in MotW too--but the point is, they're still finite sets of such moves. A player who cares to study them can pretty accurately predict the possible range of things he'll have thrown at him in terms of mechanical resolution (story effect is, well, a different story).

Contrast this with, essentially, pulling the decision either completely out of the air or creating a mechanic for it on the fly.

* The GM is quite at liberty to come up with custom moves - the AW rulebook has a whole chapter devoted to that.​

I don't recall much of that in MotW, though its possible I missed it. In either case, at least what the player will be doing is pretty defined.

The principle difference between AW and a "rulings not rules" RPG is that AW has strict rules about when the GM is permitted to make a hard move, and when the GM is permitted to make a soft move; the RNR RPG does not.

This is related to the different ways that prep is expected to be used in the two games.

I think identifying the difference in terms of rigidity of mechanics is a misdiagnosis: it's focusing on the technical minutiae of resolution procedures rather than the more significant differences in what the GM is permitted to say, and when.

Thats's because, I suspect, I consider the mechanical resolution end important and you don't.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've run Monster of the Week (in fact, I need to get started on the next adventure) and I haven't found it to be rigid at all. Yes, PbtA games can seem (edit to write in actual English here) that way from the outside ("What if I want to do something not covered by the moves?") but the moves aren't the end-all and be-all of these games. Characters can do anything they want; the Moves are just there if the PCs do something that triggers them. Otherwise, the play, meaning conversation, just continues.

Yeah, but since that's entirely non-mechanical, its also largely irrelevant to system resolution. A lot of it would be handled in general the same way in virtually any game.

As a MotW Keeper, I can indeed "just decide" that something happens (assuming I understand what you're talking about here). That, in fact, is the entire point of making Hard Moves--I make something happen and now the PCs have to react to it. The difference between PbtA and more traditional games is that PbtA games have actually taken the list of just about everything a traditional GM does and given it a name. It looks like a finite list, because there's like 13 items on the Basic Keeper Moves list and 14 on the Monster Moves list, but it's actually no more finite than the options for a D&D DM's are.

But you're not forcing a result on the PC as far as I can tell. You don't just drop a condition on a PC, or force a player to roll an entirely new resolution to suit your view. The fact that player moves are finite, doesn't mean they aren't broad. Many general MotW Moves cover a lot of potential ground--but by that fact, they also mean that surprises that don't fit their expectations are unlikely to be mechanical in nature; the mechanical tools are all right there and pretty visible. That's a pretty different beast to a RNR GM who is free and expected to pull such things out of the air at need.

 

[Thomas Shey]

To be fair, in many games, the rules often do allow you to use the mechanics in place of RPing. Like, I could "legally" get away with saying "I lie to the guards. 15 on Deception!" and never describe my lie at all. It's just that nearly every GM out there would insist the player give at least the bare bones of what they're doing, and nearly every player would do so without the GM asking for it.

And because I think people have gotten an incorrect idea of what I'm saying here; I'm not saying that the Moves are definitive of actions, but of mechanics.

I think that's such a baked-in assumption that seeing moves like "When you tell a lie, roll +Stat and..." could make someone come to the conclusion that that's the Lying skill and anyone who doesn't have similar move can't lie. Especially since (IMO and IME) PbtA games and fans are not necessarily the best at actually describing what a lot of the genre's parts are. The often-touted phrase "to do it, do it!" can be exceedingly unhelpful for people who grew up on much crunchier games.

I don't think that's what the game says, but I do think a player with a Move like that can go in with a pretty good expectation of how an attempt to lie to some officials would be resolved. There are rules light games where that would be much more a guessing game for players. Even players without such a Move probably have at least an idea how most actions (that require a die roll at all) would be resolved (it just might be a different way using a different Move).

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is often a misunderstanding. Moves were created to assist the GM and offer support for beginning GMs. They are not at all constraining. PbtA games make it very clear that these are not specific things players do. Don't name the move. State what you are doing in the fiction. Just like any other rpg.

Its an easy misconception to make from a player perspective. The character sheet is covered in moves.

 

[bloodtide]

I don't think this is accurate. Players would get pretty bored. Even the most conscripted game isn't that predictable and formulaic.

To have Consistency, things must be the same.

Also to add to the point that @Arilyn and @pemerton made: Considering how a lot of rules light games often involve simple mechanics that are broadly applied, your criticism of consistency could also apply to rules light games. You could have a rules light game, for example, that just involves rolling a six on a d6 to succeed. Challenges in that case will be rolling that d6 for a 6 every time no matter what you are facing or regardless of the fluff, and that is not the result of a rules heavy rpg.

It did say it apples to both in my post.

Just to add to this:

@bloodtide's posts assume that the stakes in the fiction doesn't matter - that "success" is purely the mechanical phenomenon of rolling high, and that all that is at stake in the game is success in that sense.

Even if that were true, that still wouldn't make bloodtide's posts correct - because even in a rules heavy game, it is typically possible to affect the probabilities by making choices that engage the fiction (eg in Rolemaster, taking cover can improve your defensive bonus).

But at least in my experience of RPGing, it is not true. Players care about the fictional stakes.

Guess the 'stakes' go along with the 'consistency'?

 

[pemerton]

the moves aren't the end-all and be-all of these games. Characters can do anything they want; the Moves are just there if the PCs do something that triggers them. Otherwise, the play, meaning conversation, just continues.

I think this crucial feature of AW and similar games is frequently ignored in discussion of them.

What it means is that the design of the player-facing moves in this sort of game is crucial, as it is the player-facing moves that both (i) give players the chance to really seize control of the situation (via the stuff their PCs do) and (ii) that really open up the risk of hard moves from the GM (by rolling 6 or less).

 

[pemerton]

Thats's because, I suspect, I consider the mechanical resolution end important and you don't.

Huh?

Mechanical minutiae matter. But they don't tell us much about what's different between playing (say) Dungeon World and playing (say) Moldvay Basic.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Huh?

Mechanical minutiae matter. But they don't tell us much about what's different between playing (say) Dungeon World and playing (say) Moldvay Basic.

I think they tell quite a bit about what's different from playing OD&D and Monster of the Week (I can't speak of Basic).

 

[Faolyn]

Okay, I'll do one more. This one is, as far as I'm concerned, a flat out bad design element. Ironically, its of the same lineage as Storypath.

Most versions of Storyteller had relatively simple linear character building (distribute X points in various categories, then subdistribute individual points to the attributes.

Now, when you get time to do advancement, you do (at least on the numeric elements that have ranks) progressive cost increases to improve all those attributes, skills and powers. The net effect of this is that it produces a perverse incentive to build a character hyper-focused at the start, and broaden out over time (because the inverse is ridiculously expensive to do). So if you've got two players, one of whom is sensitive to this sort of mechanical incentive, one who isn't, the former builds to the incentive (while potentially resenting it because it may well distort what he would prefer to play because he doesn't want to put up with the overhead of doing what he genuinely wants) and one doesn't (because he doesn't notice or doesn't understand the implications of it--but is still irritable that when he wants to advance a couple things up later they're really time consuming to do). Over time, the first will simply flat out have a better character than the second (because the maths favor him and not the latter) and if the players care about that sort of thing at all, it creates problems at the table (even moreso if the characters are at all similar where its liable to be stark).

Except that's the case in basically any game where there's multiple choices to be made as you progress. And not just point-based games--how often have we heard about "feat traps" for D&D and Pathfinder? Or even "subclass traps" and "class traps"? I had a player who got very upset when her 5e beastmaster ranger with giant badger buddy wasn't working the way she wanted it to. Literally the only way to avoid this is to play the OSR-iest of OSR games where you get nothing but hit points when you level up.

Also, "better character" is highly subjective. Is it purely the math, and one character doing more damage or having the best race/class/archetype/feat/whatever combo? That depends heavily on the game--and while (as I said) I haven't played a Storypath game, from what I've read of Curseborn, having the most "mathematically perfect" character is very much not that game's point.

To say this sort of thing has no social impact is, IMO, nonsensical.

But again, that's entirely on the players. The beastmaster I talked about wasn't angry or jealous of any of the other players who did more damage (she was probably angry at her dice, though). Your players need to use their words and be mature about it.