Rules Heavy v. Rules Light experiment - is it feasible?

[Quasqueton]

I mean, it's like Dancey is attempting an experiment to figure out how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

Someone says, "Only 10 angels fit on the head of a pin. Only fewer fit well."

<tests 10 angels. they fit. tests 100 angels. they fit.>

"Fewer angels are not necessarily easier to fit on the head of a pin."

The Crowd: "How did he test this? Were they all standing? Were they all sitting? Were they fat angels? Were they standing on each other's shoulders? The study must have been flawed. We don't know how it was done, but the result flies in the face of out beleifs and common sense. He must hate fewer angels."

Quasqueton - putting off actual work since 8 a.m.

 

[Gentlegamer]

By the way, the "desperately want to believe" remark by Dancey is also what casts suspicion on his methods and motive.

 

[Quasqueton]

And, as has been demonstrated many times in recent days, Quasqueton is the MASTER of logical, reason based arguments. He'd never let his posts be influenced by emotion or preconceived perceptions.

Glad you notice and agree. Thank you.

Seems I'm on everyone's mind today. I love y'all too.

Quasqueton

 

[der_kluge]

Glad you notice and agree. Thank you.

Seems I'm on everyone's mind today. I love y'all too.

Quasqueton

Come on - GROUP HUG! You too, Psion!

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Honestly, the only way to test something like this is to use the SAME group for both, and make sure they know the rules for both well enough at the start, also.

It'd be even better if we just went out and testing all gaming groups in the world. Then we'd actually know something.

 

[Banesfinger]

Which makes this (and other) discussions more or less a pointless endeavor.

I am unfamiliar with the original test by Dancey.

However, if you want to decide if a game is lite/heavy (complicated/easy), you should have more than two games (D&D 3.5E and C&C) to compare, correct?

Why not have several games, from brain testers like Aftermath (FGU) to simple games like Tunnels & Trolls?

Then divide the results into categories, marked on complexity/simplicity (lite/heavy) like:
Combat
Overland Movement
Character Generation
NPC interaction
Etc

Soon you will see a pattern emerging that will tell you if a game is heavy or lite.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Honestly, the only way to test something like this is to use the SAME group for both, and make sure they know the rules for both well enough at the start, also.

It'd be even better if we just went out and testing all gaming groups in the world. Then we'd actually know something.

Yes, and we'd have to not tell them they were being tested at all.

However, I'd like to protest that the original test does tell us SOMETHING, it tells us that in at least SOME circumstances "rules lite" games can take as long as rules heavy games. Which only means one thing and one thing only, some groups may not see a benefit with switching to rules light.

I wouldn't mind being involved in such a test at Gencon, however. I can play D&D well enough that I think I'd qualify...

I just don't think I'd want to be involved in the arguement over what game we choose for "rules lite" *grin*

 

[der_kluge]

Honestly, the only way to test something like this is to use the SAME group for both, and make sure they know the rules for both well enough at the start, also.

It'd be even better if we just went out and testing all gaming groups in the world. Then we'd actually know something.

I think all you'd really learn is that which we already know -
- many gamers are smelly
- a lot of gamers still live in their parents' basement
- most people wouldn't want you hanging out in their house, watching them game.

 

[Gentlegamer]

The rules lite game should be d02! It Know No Limit!

 

[nothing to see here]

right N is too small.

you'd need at least 20 groups of each system to validate your study

You'd also need a volunteer sample who would be oblivious to what you were testing. Mere knowledge (or even pre-determined suspicion) of the variables to be measured would make the test a total write-off.

It's a common error in focus groups. People can know they're being observed and recorded. They can know the issues they will be expected to discuss. They can even come to suspect the parameters of the study IF this knowledged is gleaned totally within the confines of the test itself (in fact it's encouraged). However should any participant steps into the test knowing or suspecting what the people behind the glass are looking for, the focus group becomes useless...

...it's why people who work in public relations, marketing, or other fields prone to using social research are screened out of focus groups (which is a shame since, by my count, I could have made close to a thousand dollars in these studies already)...we spend our time not thinking about what the moderator is saying...and instead try to figure out what they're saying behind the glass.