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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SweeneyTodd" data-source="post: 2406258" data-attributes="member: 9391">I completely agree with this. I'm "outside the forest", and I think some of the arguing way back in this thread was because people inside and outside the forest were having disconnects in communication. (For instance, the person who asked the question that led to your response about rules-light gaming not being faster, that then started this thread? One of the developers of FATE, a game that's clearly outside the forest.)So let me go down the list as far as how things are in games like FATE, Sorcerer, The Pool, Universalis, Primetime Adventures, HeroQuest, etc:* Freeform ability scores -- often quantified, but, for example, you probably don't have a "Strength" score unless your character is particularly strong or weak. You could have "Strong", but you could also have "Loves Marsha" or "Alcoholic". (The stat that was rolled most against in the last campaign I ran in FATE was "Troublemaker", in fact.)* Conflict resolution systems that use the same mechanic for killing and breaking as they do for anything else* Possibility of troupe-style play. and sometimes shared characters* Heavy Director stance, often codified in the system, so players are creating environment (and plot, for that matter) as they playThose are the default play styles for the games I play, and a fair number of other people play. (I do admit these are games that are rarely discussed on ENWorld.) There are some interesting things about these games, which I think are strongly tied to the differences above.* Social Contract is often discussed in the rules themselves, and little or no attempt is made for the rules to "patch up" Social Contract issues like differing agendas or one player blocking another's creative input. (In other words, the games specify the kinds of things you need to get straight within a group before and during play.)* Focus on what the player wants to do, rather than exclusively "what my character would do". Players can propose conflicts, frame scenes, and have access to "metagame resources".* Ability, and expectation, for players to add creative input at all levels. Gamemaster is more of a "first among equals" and his ideas are not necessarily privileged above those of the players.* Combat is deemphasized, in favor of conflict of all kinds. If there are tactical resource allocation elements, they apply equally to things like "Convince my tribe to give us aid" as they do to "Kill that guy". Social conflict is often more common than physical conflict.* (And this is a big one) Almost no need for rules-heavy supplements, and no attempt to release regular supplements to produce recurring income. (Often these games have no supplements at all, or focus on setting. One exception: Primetime Adventures does benefit from supplements, in the form of "A DVD set of your favorite TV show". <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )These games don't show up on the radar as far as sales compared to D20 products, for the most part, but I think some of them could if properly marketed. For example, Primetime Adventures is mechanically much simpler than Monopoly, and its subject material (TV shows) appeals a much larger potential market than heroic fantasy.I imagine many people will think, "But those games only appeal to creative types, GMs". I'm finding that when you use a system that doesn't require design skills to create, players will surprise you. My players routinely come up with whole new directions for our "story" that are better than I'd thought of. And I'll argue that all you need is the ability to come up with compelling issues and characters to play like this -- and anyone who's ever told somebody a story about how their day went has already done that.Sorry for the long post. My question is: Is anybody else here talking about this too? Because, I guess I'm dense, but this is what I was thinking when I was talking about and defending "rules-light" play. Rules-light simulationist "party of adventurer" games work fine too, but I don't think many of us are trying to say "I want to play exactly like D&D 3.x, but with fewer rules".</blockquote>

Verification