Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EricNoah" data-source="post: 2385491" data-attributes="member: 4">There are probably at least two stripes of RPG player:  those who find more rules "liberating" in the sense that they outline the things you're allowed to do and they remove the burden of on-the-spot judgement calls; and those who find fewer rules "liberating" in the sense that they don't limit what you can do and give the GM power to make on-the-spot judgement calls.  There's certainly room in this world for both kinds of players, though I can certainly see why there might be some tension between the two camps.  The questions in my mind are:  can an RPG company make more money by creating resources for one type over the other, or should they cater to both types?  Can one RPG product satisfy both types enough to make it worth the "fluff/crunch" balancing act?  Is one style of play more or less likely to draw new players to the hobby?  Is one style of play more or less likely to encourage players to take on the DM's mantle?  Is one style of play more or less likely to help sell not only books but gaming "hardware" such as miniatures?  Is one style of play more or less likely to lead to future purchases from the company creating the game?  Is one style of material likely to lend itself more or less to those who like to create homebrewed rules material (i.e. is one or the other likely to lead to the DM developing new subsystems or add-ons by desire as opposed to necessity; is one or the othery more "toolkit-ish" in approach, etc.)?  Does the presence of a lot of crunch necessarily squash creativity?  (I believe the prevailing SENTIMENT is that it does, but is there a way to measure it -- or is sentiment/perception the only valid concern -- i.e. if you THINK it squashes your creativity, then you're less satisfied with it.)  Does the absence of crunch lead to the perception of decreased value (i.e. the "any chump can come up with fluff, it takes professionals to design functional rules" argument)?  If you publish rules-lite material, do you have less material that will sell to players? I.e. are players the primary consumers of crunch?  Is there a point at which "fewer rules" makes the DM's job very burdensome?  Is there a point at which "more rules" lead to a situation so complex that it is actually easier to just fly by the seat of your pants?  I think we can deduce WotC's answers to these questions by their business practices, but it is an ever-changing thing -- we've seen books that were more rules-heavy, some that were less rules-heavy, some that better integrated the rules into the other parts of the book, etc. They're still probably seeking the ideal mix and there's a good chance that there is NO ideal mix...</blockquote>

Verification