Rules heavy = bad; light = good

[Umbran]

Not only that, the listener never tacks that on when he hears somebody speaks.

So when I say "pizza is the best" the listener should have tacked on " for Janx" or "in Janx's opinion"

But most listeners don't.

On the other hand, it is contingent on the author to consider the audience. In a venue where there is no communication of vocal tone or body language or facial expression, it shouldn't be too much to hope that folks would make sure their written words most clearly say what they actually mean. It isn't all that difficult to sprinkle around some "in my experience" and "in my opinion" here and there, after all.

In my opinion, of course

 

[Janx]

On the other hand, it is contingent on the author to consider the audience. In a venue where there is no communication of vocal tone or body language or facial expression, it shouldn't be too much to hope that folks would make sure their written words most clearly say what they actually mean. It isn't all that difficult to sprinkle around some "in my experience" and "in my opinion" here and there, after all.

In my opinion, of course

I don't disagree.

It's basically a two way street. Both parties need to try a little harder. The writer to put in a few qualifiers, and to speak in a less "my way or the highway" tone.

And the reader, to grant some grace that the author didn't mean to come off so strongly, or condone the harvesting of baby puppies for skin lotion.

 

[Desdichado]

The number of folks who we have to moderate for being too aggressive, and who then use, "But what I'm saying is TEH TROOF! 100% accurate facts!" as a defense says that, whatever the proportion, they are enough to create serious issues for the community. The edition wars were full of such people.

Oh, sure, such people exist, and in large numbers by an absolute standard, no doubt. But when you say, "that's not how people talk" you're making way too sweeping a generalization. I very specifically pepper my converstaion--especially on the internet--with caveats every couple of sentences or so, that what I'm saying is relevent "to me," "in my experience", "in my opinion," "in my gaming groups," etc. And yet I'm still frequently interpreted as highly opinionated and argumentative. Not saying that I'm not those things very frequently, but it does rankle a bit when you're bending over backwards to not do that and you're still interpreted that way anyway.

Or do I need to add a caveat that I believe the implicit "to me" may not apply when invoked in highly emotionally charged discussions such as in an edition war?

 

[Desdichado]

On the other hand, it is contingent on the author to consider the audience. In a venue where there is no communication of vocal tone or body language or facial expression, it shouldn't be too much to hope that folks would make sure their written words most clearly say what they actually mean. It isn't all that difficult to sprinkle around some "in my experience" and "in my opinion" here and there, after all.

In my opinion, of course

Well, which is it? How people talk, or how people interpret what's said? You've presented both opposing cases in two back to back posts!

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I feel like I'm seeing the above viewed almost as a consensus these days. It's probably confirmation. bias, but I figured it was worth asking. It really seems to be the thing right now - rules light games coming at us from every direction, but nary a new heavy system in sight

There's a thread ongoing right here in EN World about whether DDN will be rules-lite or not. And plenty of really awesome games recently have been billed as light/fast etc.

I have a bunch of rules lite games on my bookshelf. And they're frickin' awesome, each and every one of them. But there's room on my shelf for heavy, crunchy, tactical systems too. Stuff I can spend a few hours optimizing a character, spaceship, NPC, or what-have-you and actively enjoy that process.

Of course, the biggest game in the world right now is Pathfinder, which is a heavy system. So clearly there is a demand for heavy systems. But I stills feel there's an underlying current of "heavy=bad". And heavy doesn't equal bad; it equals heavy.

I'm going to be gambling on a demand for heavy systems soon with N.E.W. and O.LD. These are not rules-lite games. And more than one person has expressed sincere surprise that these aren't rules-lite games. But that's by the by and some time off.

What say you? Is lite a progression thing, a phase, or am I a victim of my own confirmation bias and seeing judgement which isn't there?

Or - and I can see this as a possibility - is an aging RPG demographic (and we are) being drawn towards games which demand less of our increasingly in-demand time?

I don't think it's all that new (although it has accelerated). Rule-light games have been around and considered new and shiny since at least the 90s. I think 3e D&D got a lot of people back into a heavier (medium in my frame of reference) rules system, and therefore there has been a bit of a rediscovery of rules-light systems from the games that got their start with 3e D&D.

In addition, there is the conflation of narrative = rules-light; simulationist = rules-heavy, which isn't true. While you and I know the difference, some more casual players aren't going to catch on to why they like one thing or another. And narrativist systems tend to be somewhat rules-lighter. And while rules-light systems have been cool for decades, narrativist systems were pretty obscure before 2000.

Back in the 90s gaming renaissance, new systems were almost all simulationist, and usually rules medium. (Even White Wolf's WoD was sort of a simulationist, rule-medium system trying to masquerade (pun intended) as a narrativist, rules-light system.) Most of the truly rules-heavy systems got their start before then.

So the progression has been from rules heavy and medium being the only games in town, to gradual introduction of rules-light, to rules medium and rules light being the main contenders with rules heavy falling to the fringe. And the progression has been from simulationist games being about the only thing in town, to gradual introduction of narrativist elements, to full-blown narrativist games. (Gamist elements can apply to either.)

*Pause stream of consciousness to see what I am actually responding to*

Alright, so history review on how I view things aside, I love lots of different types of games. I feel the same way as you mentioned about using rules-heavy systems for things. Designing your own spaceship--who doesn't like that? I once drew blueprints for a giant flying ship with decks that included an arena and a couple of libraries. It was fantasy, but I was essentially building a starship without thinking about it. Had I had rules for cool stuff, I would have used them.

That being said, I do prefer the correct amount of rules for the desired experience. My goal isn't rules-light, it is "rules satisfying." I want as much detail in the rules as needed, and no more extra rules to keep track of. "Keep track of" is the key, since I love random tables. Throw in plenty of those. But subsystems will really bog down play if they aren't handled adeptly.

What I dislike about rules-heavy systems is slowing down actual play. Taking a long time to create a character, provided the results are worth it, is fine. Taking time to build my own spaceship, likewise. Having to build stats for every mook, not so fun. (Which is why pre-made stat blocks for typical creatures and professions are great to have). The big problem for me is when we don't get enough done during our sessions.

I love the rare experience of accomplishing everything I had hoped I'd get done in a gaming session, having had a variety of scene types, role-playing, action, etc, and then looking at the clock and realizing it's only been 2 hours and we have 2 more to go! Realizing it's been the whole session and I only got half as much done as I would have liked is extremely unsatisfying to me.

So for me, if the rules are heavy, but the play moves along quickly (faster than 3e D&D, for instance), I'm game.

I think people today are also trained to get more done in their gaming time by video games. When the computer is handling all the math, and all you have to do is point and click, you can swing through entire adventures with rounds upon rounds of combat in a short period of time. Sitting down at a table and taking 2 or 3 sessions just to get through a single combat is excruciating. I don't know how anyone ever could have played by mail.

What I want is rules-satisfying and rules-fast, and I like simulationist and narrativist for different situations. What I think we're seeing is a general evolution to people liking their games to run fast, narrativism becoming RPG mainstream, and rules-light being (incorrectly) viewed as the sum of that.

 

[Roland55]

I like both rules-heavy and rules-light. I've thought about this over night, and I suspect I get the most fun out of rules-heavy -- but that's just me.

Perhaps it's a feature of my demographic, as others have suggested (old)? I've no idea.

I cannot tell whether I will like a game or not until I've played it for awhile. And, like others who have posted here, I have plenty of -light and -heavy games on my shelves.

FWIW.

 

[Roland55]

Well, which is it? How people talk, or how people interpret what's said? You've presented both opposing cases in two back to back posts!

Well then -- he's succeeded, hasn't he?

 

[Lwaxy]

For a long campaign, planned and prepared, I rather want rules heavy. For a quick, on the spot pickup game I need rules light.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think the answer tro that question depends on the circumstances of the gaming habits of an individual or group.

For example, I play with a group of friends in one game that I have known for quite some time. We are all long time gamers and can play heavy systems without an undue amount of drag because of our familiarity with various complex games and each other. In effect, with this particular group, we don't really feel the weight of a heavy system as much because we are all familiar with it.

I also run rules light games with other folks that I haven't known as long including an OD&D game that I run at the FLGS that is pretty much open to anyone. The important feature of these games is how quickly can someone take a seat, roll up a character, and meaningfully contribute to the game right on the spot. For this kind of game, requiring that a would-be player read a bullet stopping tome of rules and get up to speed before playing is a show stopper.

For that same reason I think rules lite games are popular at cons and gamedays when the experience level of potential players is all over the place. Also groups with a transient player base will be better served by a rules lite system. Such a group could easily spend more time teaching new players the system than actually playing.

 

[herrozerro]

I prefer a lite ruleset with heavy a heavy emphasis on customization. Such as savage worlds. The rules are simple and each individual rule is simple enough. But the depth comes in the level of customization. You can create a sword swinging fighter or delve into powers and edges that give you more choices.