Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[Bedrockgames]

If the player (or players) want it one way, the GM wants it another, who gets to decide? I'm perfectly willing to call that the person who "wins" here.

In my view this is the wrong way to look at such a social situation. If you are thinking in terms of winning or losing, that is a recipe for problems IMO

But again, this is an all-or-nothing view. Its entirely possible that parts of the game make them happy and parts very much not, and they have to decide whether they're willing to sacrifice the former for the latter.

Like I said before, as a GM, I adapt to the group I have. I have no problem with adapting. But I am also not the players employee or mule. When it starts to become about players wanting a very specific kind of game, and it feels too difficult to accommodate, or it interrupts the enjoyment of other players, I think it is clear that player might be better served with another GM. This is a street that goes two ways. Yes the GM will bend to certain things, but the GM has to also account for the other players at the table and the GM's own capabilities and style (there may be a style of play you want me to introduce that is perfectly reasonable, but it simply isn't a style i am comfortable running). But players also have to adapt to the GM. If I am in the shoes of the player you are describing: one who likes some elements but not others, I am not going to bother the GM or group with that. I don't want to make demands on them that they change to fit my very particular set of interests here. I wouldn't mind making a soft suggestion (such as, how do you feel about this sort of thing in games). I just don't think it is good form to cramp someone's' style or treat it like you are ordering something at a restaurant.

 

[Faolyn]

So, I should assume they're not happy with my game? Why should I make that assumption? What's the impetus for the glass half-empty belief in my GMing skills you seem to be advocating? Should I be regularly requesting validation from my players, and assume I'm doing a poor job if I don't get it?

This whole conversation confuses me. It appears to start with, "jerk unless proven not-a-jerk".

You don't have to assume they're not happy, but you can take the approach that there's always room for change and improvement.
Maybe they're fine with you as a GM but wish that you'd give them a different type of foe to fight, or more/fewer puzzles because they had fun/didn't have fun the last time you gave them a puzzle, or that the adventure took place on a different part of the world. Maybe one of them feels like they haven't had enough time in the spotlight. Maybe one feels that another player is getting too much time. Maybe two players are having problems with one another and having you step in would be helpful. All in all, it doesn't hurt, and usually helps, to get frequent feedback from the players.

 

[Faolyn]

I'd argue your first clause is only true when your definition of "mechanical support" is schematic. At some point when you make rules lighter, you're either disregarding some kinds of output, or you're offloading it on the GM. I don't frankly believe its possible to avoid both.

A happy medium, which I admittedly don't see all that often, is to use a lot of examples.

For instance, there've been some rules-lite games where I wanted to make creatures that are venomous, but the games have minimal or even no rules for poison. At most, I can extrapolate things like "make this saving throw/attribute roll" but not what the effects should be--regular damage, attribute damage, secondary effects, and especially in OSR-type games, if poisons should be inevitably fatal unless neutralized. It's not always clear what the game "wants." Having some poisons on the equipment list or having venomous monsters goes a long way to helping a GM know how poison works without having an actual rule for poison.

Or lots of games have examples of play, and various effects can be shown. The game has no specific rules for climbing, but the example has the GM decide that this cliff is sheer enough for the DC to be X or there to be a penalty on the roll. Or you don't need to have a specific "how much damage does mundane fire do" if the Fireball spell says that flammable things get set on fire, this fire isn't magical, and inflicts 1d6 damage if touched.

Obviously, not every missing rule can be covered this way, but I think that it would help at least somewhat.

 

[Thomas Shey]

In my view this is the wrong way to look at such a social situation. If you are thinking in terms of winning or losing, that is a recipe for problems IMO

You can think what you will, but I'm willing to bet "There's a disagreement about how something should be done, and one of the people in the disagreement gets it the way they want it" is what most people would call "winning" the disagreement.


As to the rest of your post, you appear to either have missed or disregarded things I've said in this thread of posts.

 

[Thomas Shey]

A happy medium, which I admittedly don't see all that often, is to use a lot of examples.

For instance, there've been some rules-lite games where I wanted to make creatures that are venomous, but the games have minimal or even no rules for poison. At most, I can extrapolate things like "make this saving throw/attribute roll" but not what the effects should be--regular damage, attribute damage, secondary effects, and especially in OSR-type games, if poisons should be inevitably fatal unless neutralized. It's not always clear what the game "wants." Having some poisons on the equipment list or having venomous monsters goes a long way to helping a GM know how poison works without having an actual rule for poison.

Or lots of games have examples of play, and various effects can be shown. The game has no specific rules for climbing, but the example has the GM decide that this cliff is sheer enough for the DC to be X or there to be a penalty on the roll. Or you don't need to have a specific "how much damage does mundane fire do" if the Fireball spell says that flammable things get set on fire, this fire isn't magical, and inflicts 1d6 damage if touched.

Obviously, not every missing rule can be covered this way, but I think that it would help at least somewhat.

That's fair, but by the time you've got enough of those, it seems to me that its just a "soft" less light game that hides a lot of its secondary rules in examples.

 

[aramis erak]

So, I should assume they're not happy with my game? Why should I make that assumption? What's the impetus for the glass half-empty belief in my GMing skills you seem to be advocating? Should I be regularly requesting validation from my players, and assume I'm doing a poor job if I don't get it?

This whole conversation confuses me. It appears to start with, "jerk unless proven not-a-jerk".

It is always safer to ask than to assume.

I've had cases where I did something that I thought was fun, but they were not enjoying it. If I hadn't asked, no one would have mentioned it, because it was a small part of the game....

 

[Faolyn]

That's fair, but by the time you've got enough of those, it seems to me that its just a "soft" less light game that hides a lot of its secondary rules in examples.

Maybe? But I don't think so.

Take a game that doesn't have rules for poison, like I said. The equipment list has a vial of poison that can be coated on a weapon and does +2d6 damage on the next successful hit. The monster book has one creature that has a bite attack that poisons the victim, causing them to have disadvantage to their rolls for the next minute unless they make a save at a certain penalty or unusually high DC, and another creature that has a sting attack that causes the victim to make a save or die in 1d6 hours (and there's a neutralize poison in the spell section, or antidotes in the equipment section). And the sample adventure has bad guys who use a poison that, if the target fails their save that uses a different-than-normal save, they fall asleep for an hour or until they take damage.

So, to my way of thinking, none of these are rules. They're normal parts of the game, and for many genres, it would be weird to not have poisons. But they're good examples. It tells me that save-or-die poisons with delayed onsets are OK (which isn't the case in a lot of games, like 5e), that long-term conditions like unconsciousness are OK (again, not often common), that poisons may only do damage and not have any other effect, that they don't have to be resisted by one particular stat or save. So this hypothetical may not have a section entitled Poisons because of how rules-lite it is, but it has enough examples that someone who pays attention can reverse-engineer them to create their own poisons without wondering if it's "wrong" for the game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You can think what you will, but I'm willing to bet "There's a disagreement about how something should be done, and one of the people in the disagreement gets it the way they want it" is what most people would call "winning" the disagreement.

I think on this one we are just going to have to agree to disagree and call it a draw

As to the rest of your post, you appear to either have missed or disregarded things I've said in this thread of posts.

Which parts did you think I missed (I was in between watching something for a podcast and may indeed have read your post too fast)

 

[Thomas Shey]

Maybe? But I don't think so.

Take a game that doesn't have rules for poison, like I said. The equipment list has a vial of poison that can be coated on a weapon and does +2d6 damage on the next successful hit. The monster book has one creature that has a bite attack that poisons the victim, causing them to have disadvantage to their rolls for the next minute unless they make a save at a certain penalty or unusually high DC, and another creature that has a sting attack that causes the victim to make a save or die in 1d6 hours (and there's a neutralize poison in the spell section, or antidotes in the equipment section). And the sample adventure has bad guys who use a poison that, if the target fails their save that uses a different-than-normal save, they fall asleep for an hour or until they take damage.

So, to my way of thinking, none of these are rules. They're normal parts of the game, and for many genres, it would be weird to not have poisons. But they're good examples. It tells me that save-or-die poisons with delayed onsets are OK (which isn't the case in a lot of games, like 5e), that long-term conditions like unconsciousness are OK (again, not often common), that poisons may only do damage and not have any other effect, that they don't have to be resisted by one particular stat or save. So this hypothetical may not have a section entitled Poisons because of how rules-lite it is, but it has enough examples that someone who pays attention can reverse-engineer them to create their own poisons without wondering if it's "wrong" for the game.

Again, that's fair; that's often how things work in practice in 13th Age. However, the more things you do that way, to my view, the more the establish precedent; if someone runs into another sleep poison, they'll expect it to work similar to the last one and if it doesn't its jarring. Once you have enough of them, they're effectively soft "rules" as I noted (or alternatively, we're back to the GM ad-hoc'ing everything and destroying any sense of consistency in the process).

 

[Micah Sweet]

It is always safer to ask than to assume.

I've had cases where I did something that I thought was fun, but they were not enjoying it. If I hadn't asked, no one would have mentioned it, because it was a small part of the game....

Ok. Let's say I was in a similar situation. I follow your advice, and eventually push my players hard enough that they admit this thing I enjoy isn't something they enjoy. What then? Are you advocating that the GM should drop anything the players don't like all the time, even if the GM does? Only some of the time? How much and how often should the GM compromise their own enjoyment of the experience to keep the players happy in your opinion?