Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[Bill Zebub]

So often discussions about game design turn into stories about what other people might do, and how to prevent it with rules. I don't understand this mindset. I always try to focus on how I want to play games. If other people want to play in ways that don't suit me, I don't play with them.

The purpose of game rules (in any game, not just RPGs) is to constrain possible actions in ways that lead to interesting, meaningful choices. Not to constrain people with different preferences into playing with our own preferences. That's what choosing your friends (or at least who you game with) is for.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This goes back to how much the GM tells the players about each detail.

When the GM just says "the skeleton in the next room is immune to fire, best buddy players" and the players just nod "thanks buddy GM, we will attack it with cold instead!"

Though in other games, the DM does not give out such information to the players just to be buddies. The players have some ways to discover things in character, but otherwise they can only learn that skeleton is immune to fire by encountering it and attempting to use fire to combat it.

Note my phrasing "or after". The question isn't whether the skeleton is immune to fire. The question is: why? Just because? Is there some rationale for it? Can the players ever discover the rationale? Can they use it predictively in the future in some fashion? Or is it just an arbitrary change to throw the players off?

I think these are two radically different things, and I think describing the latter as "inconsistent" is an entirely fair way to put it.

 

[Faolyn]

That seems entirely possible. I dropped my conversation with them because there seemed to be some terminal communication breakdown going on, and I lacked the energy to disentangle it.

To be fair, you were, as I said, extremely vague or confusing about a lot of things, leaving me to have to guess at a lot of what you were trying to say. Like, you're talking about Onyx Path as if it's... what, a rules light game? As a rules heavy game? Just badly designed advancement in general?

(Also, my pronouns are right over there <---)

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have definitely lost the plot of this thread by this point.

I'm starting to think I have, too.

 

[Thomas Shey]

To be fair, you were, as I said, extremely vague or confusing about a lot of things, leaving me to have to guess at a lot of what you were trying to say. Like, you're talking about Onyx Path as if it's... what, a rules light game? As a rules heavy game? Just badly designed advancement in general?

(Also, my pronouns are right over there <---)

I wasn't responding to you when I used "their" so I'd have had to go look it up. In those cases the neutral "them/their" seems safest.

And I understand you think I was vague here. Since I don't understand why or in what way, and as I said, lacked the energy to disentangle that, I just moved on. If that's unsatisfactory, it is.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So often discussions about game design turn into stories about what other people might do, and how to prevent it with rules. I don't understand this mindset. I always try to focus on how I want to play games. If other people want to play in ways that don't suit me, I don't play with them.

If I only talked about my own games and what's needed for that, that would likely be uninteresting or foreign to the vast majority of people I could be talking about it with, so I don't limit it to that.

The purpose of game rules (in any game, not just RPGs) is to constrain possible actions in ways that lead to interesting, meaningful choices. Not to constrain people with different preferences into playing with our own preferences. That's what choosing your friends (or at least who you game with) is for.

And as with many such things, this makes assumptions about how easy and free it is to discard potential players and GMs that is far from universal.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The DM not being consistent absolutely would be a reason for that. There may be others, too… but I’m guessing a lot of those? Folks would just lump them in with “DM inconsistency” and be done with it.

I’d be among those. Something doesn’t work the way it’s already been established to work? I want a good reason for that and I want that communicated in some way to the players.

I can accept there might be reasons that might be in the long haul to reveal, but revealed it should be at some point, and if that's a constant thing I reserve the right to question the motivation involved.

 

[Bill Zebub]

And as with many such things, this makes assumptions about how easy and free it is to discard potential players and GMs that is far from universal.

I agree that can be an issue, but the flip side is that I think it's quixotic to try to use rules to force people to play with a playstyle that conflicts with their own preferences. YMMV, of course.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I agree that can be an issue, but the flip side is that I think it's quixotic to try to use rules to force people to play with a playstyle that conflicts with their own preferences. YMMV, of course.

You obviously can't force them to. You can, however, set expectations with them, and I see nothing quixotic about doing that.

 

[bloodtide]

Your need to leap to hyperbolic caricature of anyone’s opposing stance does you no favor.

It’s not about being best buddies or anything silly like that. It’s about realizing that you are the players’ interface with whatever is going on in the game world. If you’re not accurate… and I’d put consistency in that overall category… then you can’t blame the players for making poor calls.

So guess your talking about bad GMs here? Like when the GM says "the floor is red" and when the charcters walk into the room the GM says "Oh, the floor is lava!"

No one’s talking about this crap you’re bringing up.

I know I'm often a Lone Wolf.

Who cares? Seriously… no one is talking about the solution to a puzzle monster. People were talking about consistency in rulings and in applying the rules and processes of play.

As for details that characters are unaware of… yes, there may be reasons to keep such info from the players as well. My point is that when the players have observed something working in a given way once, if it doesn’t work that given way when encountered again, there better be a good reason. And the GM should say “there’s a reason for that” at the very least.

Consistency is just such a weird word for a RPG.

Some players will complain any time anything happens they don't like. So can the GM just say "there is a reason" and the player will accept it? I can tell you for a fact it does not work.

Note my phrasing "or after". The question isn't whether the skeleton is immune to fire. The question is: why? Just because? Is there some rationale for it? Can the players ever discover the rationale? Can they use it predictively in the future in some fashion? Or is it just an arbitrary change to throw the players off?

I think these are two radically different things, and I think describing the latter as "inconsistent" is an entirely fair way to put it.

Unless the DM is new, bad, casual or just a jerk there will always be a reason for anything in the game.