Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9599592" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Quick pile of words for <a href="http://lumpley.com/index.php/anyway/thread/594" target="_blank">AW (and derivative) with respect to rules-light and rules-heavy</a>.The fundamental procedures of GMing these games are that you (i) frame your situations with soft moves which (a) represent the interests and facilities of characters/world while (b) presenting premise-relevant threats and provocative opportunities and then (ii) follow-through on those soft moves as play demands it (soft moves ignored, 6- result).Now reduced to that core, that connotes rules-light; basically the bare bones of AW (Vincent's core layer #1 in the above).&nbsp; It is a game, it is playable, but there isn't a ton of &quot;game to be gamed&quot; there.&nbsp; While I like other Harper games, Lasers &amp; Feelings is like this (with some of layer #2 in the above link) and I don't love that game.&nbsp; Despite that agile, pithy core, Apocalypse World is very_much_not this.&nbsp; Apocalypse World is definitely a rules-heavy game at its default (which includes at least layers 1-3, and probably the battle moves and custom moves of 4). So a rules-heavy game that can be reduced to its core elements and functionally played (because the game is elegantly designed) isn't indicative of a rules-light game.&nbsp; It just means that you can play it that way or design derivatives off it and it/they will still be functional (if noticeably lacking and perhaps not particularly satisfying by comparison) as vehicles of play.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 9599592, member: 6696971"] Quick pile of words for [URL='http://lumpley.com/index.php/anyway/thread/594']AW (and derivative) with respect to rules-light and rules-heavy[/URL]. The fundamental procedures of GMing these games are that you (i) frame your situations with soft moves which (a) represent the interests and facilities of characters/world while (b) presenting premise-relevant threats and provocative opportunities and then (ii) follow-through on those soft moves as play demands it (soft moves ignored, 6- result). Now reduced to that core, that connotes rules-light; basically the bare bones of AW (Vincent's core layer #1 in the above). It is a game, it is playable, but there isn't a ton of "game to be gamed" there. While I like other Harper games, Lasers & Feelings is like this (with some of layer #2 in the above link) and I don't love that game. Despite that agile, pithy core, Apocalypse World is very_much_not this. Apocalypse World is definitely a rules-heavy game at its default (which includes at least layers 1-3, and probably the battle moves and custom moves of 4). So a rules-heavy game that can be reduced to its core elements and functionally played (because the game is elegantly designed) isn't indicative of a rules-light game. It just means that you can play it that way or design derivatives off it and it/they will still be functional (if noticeably lacking and perhaps not particularly satisfying by comparison) as vehicles of play. [/QUOTE]

Verification