Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mearls" data-source="post: 2388796" data-attributes="member: 697">I think this thread does an excellent job of summarizing why the RPG business is so screwed up.The really funny thing about rules light v. rules heavy is that it's an utterly empty proposition. The number of rules in a game, or the length of the book, have no bearing on its quality. As a few posters have pointed out, the real issue is rules sufficiency v. insufficiency. A lot of indy games have very few rules, but all of those rules are directly applicable to play. If a GM has to make a judgement call, it's because the designer wanted it that way, not because he forgot a rule or missed a special case important to the flow of play.What I think is fascinating is how people cling to rules light as if it's inherently better, to the point that I regularly see people describe games as rules light even though the game is obviously not as simple as, say, Over the Edge or Unknown Armies. The really funny thing is that people will argue with you about whether a game is light or not. Again, this is all the more interesting when you come to the conclusion that light v. heavy is a red herring. You don't see this sort of argument in other game forms - witness the discussion of computer RPGs, or look at board games. Is Settlers a better game than Puerto Rico? Is it better because it has fewer rules? Is Candyland better than both?(A good rule of thumb for any student of RPG design - frame a question about RPGs in terms of other game forms. I think that's a useful tool to burrow into whether a question is important or a red herring.)I think there's a tremendous element of conspicuous consumption at work here. In an alternate universe where D&D had incredibly simple rules and somehow managed to remain viable, I think we'd see the opposite - rules heavy wielded as a stamp of approval. To a chunk of gamers, there's a suite of positive traits inherently linked to rules light. In many cases, "rules light" simply means "a game I like." It also means, "Not D&D." There's an element of rebellion at work there, like the guy who hates pop music and collects records from obscure, late 70s bands that no one else has heard of.But here's the key: an individual gamer can like whatever he wants, and buy whatever games he buys, and hate whatever games he hates. The problem arises when "professional" game designers take those attitudes with them when they cross the pro v. hobbyist line. The automatic link between "rules light" and "good game" that some people bear is a major hindrance on the development, innovation, and improvement of the basic form of RPGs.So I think the pertinent question isn't "Is rules light or heavy better?" - the answer there is "No." The real question is, "Why does the rules light bring out such emotional responses, why do people get so defensive about it, why is there a knee jerk reaction towards it?" That's the question you need to ask, and that's where the path to figuring out why the "industry" is so messed up begins. Half of the act of RPG design is hacking through all the misconceptions, malformed conventional wisdom, and backwards thinking that clogs the "industry's" arteries.(I suspect that the real issue at work is a question of good v. bad interface design. That's a very real issue, and something I've been meaning to write about for a long time now.)</blockquote>

Verification