Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, but as my wife puts it, some people just have scar tissue.

it is just a game though. You aren’t picking a physician. We’ve all met and seen bad GMs but some people grow too paranoid and resentful over that. I just move on. I have probably played with just as many bad GMs as anyone else here (been playing since the mid-80s and met my share). My solution: if I don’t like the GM, I don’t play with them. I am the same way with players

 

[Bedrockgames]

While I'm sure that's the intent, my observation is that communication channels are not nearly as good at conveying things as those GMs seem assured they are.

No one says it is perfect. But that shouldn’t stop people from choosing this style if they find it feels less artificial. Clearly showing HP will be more consistent in terms of info. But that isn’t how life feels. People don’t have energy bars above their head. Cliffs don’t have clearly marked measurements and Tans. I do think GMs who do this, and GM who rely more on theater of the mind, get very good at giving clear descriptions. But that isn’t how also why Q&A is important. Players can ask the gm questions about how badly hurt a foe seems

 

[Thomas Shey]

it is just a game though. You aren’t picking a physician.

You talk like social interactions aren't the place people will most carry over problems from the past. That's extremely far from my experience.

 

[The Firebird]

I think it is more about emphasizing the characters inhabiting a setting, and not having some objective sense of the deep physics underpinning that setting. I can see how some GMs might do that for dramatic purposes but a lot of GMs don’t give numeric information in order to create a stronger sense of realness and so players are reliant on description (but they aren’t fudging numbers behind the scenes).

I agree that this is often the underlying idea. And sometimes it does work and can create a more immersive experience. But I think more commonly, it is overdone and the GM restricts information to the extent that actually decreases immersion.

We're getting all sorts of sensory feedback about the world we're in that we don't get at the table -- how strong someone looks, how confident they are, how gracefully they move, how tired they are. Providing game information is a kind of shortcut to that. Hiding it can mean the players are flying blind about things they ought to know.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You talk like social interactions aren't the place people will most carry over problems from the past. That's extremely far from my experience.

Yes, but again, it is just a game that wasn’t fun. I’ve had just as many bad GMs as other people I am sure, but I don’t let it impact my attitude towards future GMs. You just learn to avoid playing with bad ones or ones whose style grates on you. Life is too short to let this sort of thing become a wound you carry into other interactions

 

[Thomas Shey]

No one says it is perfect. But that shouldn’t stop people from choosing this style if they find it feels less artificial.

"People" is doing some heavy loadbearing in that sentence, though. A GM can feel its "less artificial" while providing a worse experience to his players, and the latter are, in practice, limited what they can do about it if they want to play. So who's purposes is the GM really serving there?

Clearly showing HP will be more consistent in terms of info. But that isn’t how life feels. People don’t have energy bars above their head. Cliffs don’t have clearly marked measurements and Tans. I do think GMs who do this, and GM who rely more on theater of the mind, get very good at giving clear descriptions. But that isn’t how also why Q&A is important. Players can ask the gm questions about how badly hurt a foe seems

So, basically I'm asked to believe that the same people who also complain about time consumption in more detailed systems are suddenly willing to constantly go back-and-forth to give enough information to people who aren't getting it out of their descriptions? Okay.

 

[Bedrockgames]

"People" is doing some heavy loadbearing in that sentence, though. A GM can feel its "less artificial" while providing a worse experience to his players, and the latter are, in practice, limited what they can do about it if they want to play. So who's purposes is the GM really serving there?

And a GM can feel more artificial while providing a worse experience to his players. People here means people and GMs for whom this might be a preference and a way of enjoying the game. The purpose here is to have a fun game for people who like this. You seem to be assuming that it is always about a GM imposing this preference on a group of players who don't enjoy it. This is why it is important to play with groups you have chemistry with. And a good GM can adapt to player preferences (and a good player won't be the one guy at the table complaining about the direction the group has chosen to go in: whether it is the direction I am defending or the one you are).

So, basically I'm asked to believe that the same people who also complain about time consumption in more detailed systems are suddenly willing to constantly go back-and-forth to give enough information to people who aren't getting it out of their descriptions? Okay.

Q&A is very organic and also still social. So I find most people don't mind a player asking a question, as much as they might mind pausing to check on a rule. That said, rules fading into the background as a reason for liking this isn't necessarily about time (though I do like things to move at a fast clip). Also Q&A simply doesn't bog down combat the way a heavily detailed rules system can. I can still have combats that take minutes with Q&A, if the system is sufficiently light and designed in a streamlined way. Though I would add length of combat is about rules, but not just teh amount of rules. It is also impacted by things like how characters are designed in the first place.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I agree that this is often the underlying idea. And sometimes it does work and can create a more immersive experience. But I think more commonly, it is overdone and the GM restricts information to the extent that actually decreases immersion.\

This just isn't my experience. I find both theater of the mind and hidden numbers to be very immersive. That doesn't mean not is a perfect simulation of reality, but it creates a strong feeling of immersion for me. This is just preference of course. Not everyone shares it.

We're getting all sorts of sensory feedback about the world we're in that we don't get at the table -- how strong someone looks, how confident they are, how gracefully they move, how tired they are. Providing game information is a kind of shortcut to that. Hiding it can mean the players are flying blind about things they ought to know.

Yeah it isn't reality. But your imagination fills in the blanks, which impacts immersion. And this is why things like Q&A are important. I would add though that GMs get much better at giving essential info with the least amount of words to players the more they do this. It is a skill you develop over time. But I also think people who like this style, aren't as hung up on having perfect info. If they were, they'd probably prefer miniatures and HP in the open (I am not saying that style doesn't have advantages). But they are looking for a particular feeling of being in the setting and for a lot of people, the best way to achieve that is to remove any hint of a game board and gamines in the form of visible HP

 

[aramis erak]

Just because it happens doesn't mean it should be assumed before the fact.

In writing rules, one should account for the expected authority dynamics.

Including the common enough «bleep»-head dynamics.

 

[Bedrockgames]

In writing rules, one should account for the expected authority dynamics.

Including the common enough «bleep»-head dynamics.

I'd rather rules systems just get out of the way here. The solution to bleep head GMs, is not to play with bleep head GMs. And the solution to not liking a particular use of GM authority, is to play with people who wield that authority differently. You can also have games tailored to that problem. I don't that is objectionable. but having it be an element all game should account for in the rules: no, just no. That stifles good and great GMs, it stifles entire styles of play as well