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

[Ourph]

Actually, that's more rules heavy than what I envisioned.

In order for the session to actually be included in a study of handling time, it would actually need to have handling time. I tried to incorporate that in my example. Admittedly, you're going to have to monitor a lot of play groups to get any data on a game whose ruleset is two sentences long (or use some DMs with long-term memory deficit).

 

[gizmo33]

In order for the session to actually be included in a study of handling time, it would actually need to have handling time. I tried to incorporate that in my example. Admittedly, you're going to have to monitor a lot of play groups to get any data on a game whose ruleset is two sentences long (or use some DMs with long-term memory deficit).

Rather than debate whether or not "0" is a number, I'll just say that flipping a single coin, coming up with flavor text, and writing down the numbers 2000 and 500 on the character sheet all take time.

Joking aside, my point is relevant to the greater discussion, because a rules heavy system would consider each 10 ft of wall distance climbed, for instance, as a seperate event while a rules light system might consider the entire wall one event. Thus, a rules heavy system might require you to roll for the actual pit trap, while in my rules light system, the resolution of the dungeon includes the intermediate situations such as pits, monsters, etc.

The ADnD combat round (1 minute) vs. the 3E DnD combat round (6 seconds), is an example of this.

 

[Ourph]

Rather than debate whether or not "0" is a number, I'll just say that flipping a single coin, coming up with flavor text, and writing down the numbers 2000 and 500 on the character sheet all take time.

Joking aside, my point is relevant to the greater discussion, because a rules heavy system would consider each 10 ft of wall distance climbed, for instance, as a seperate event while a rules light system might consider the entire wall one event. Thus, a rules heavy system might require you to roll for the actual pit trap, while in my rules light system, the resolution of the dungeon includes the intermediate situations such as pits, monsters, etc.

But I'm not talking about the time it takes to play the game. "Handling Time" as I defined it in my first post doesn't take into account anything that happens while the game is progressing. "Handling Time" is the amount of time it takes, when a rules question comes up and the game stops, to find and agree on the answer and get back to the game.

In your example, there was no "Handling Time" because the rules were never consulted (and the point of my response was that, when a ruleset reaches a certain level of simplicity, events that actually qualify as rules consultation where we can measure Handling Time, become very rare).

It's important to make a distinction between games which have low/high Handling Time and games which have low/high Resolution Time. Resolution Time might have a significant impact on someone's enjoyment of the game, but it's not necessarily related to how rules-lite/heavy a game is.

If your example game called for the participants to flip a coin 10,000 times to determine the outcome, rather than just once (with the higher number of heads or tails determining the outcome) it would still have low Handling Time and would (by any definition I think) be considered rules-lite, but might take forever to actually get through a session because it has high Resolution Time.

 

[gizmo33]

In your example, there was no "Handling Time" because the rules were never consulted (and the point of my response was that, when a ruleset reaches a certain level of simplicity, events that actually qualify as rules consultation where we can measure Handling Time, become very rare).

OK, I missed your distinction between "handling" and "resolution" time. Now that I think I understand it though, I still disagree with the above point. You DO have a measurable handling time, because (and I tabled this earlier but I'll say it now) 0 IS A NUMBER So saying that something has a measurable quantity of zero DOES NOT mean that something has no measurable value for that quantity!

So saying that the amount of rules "handling" in my game system is 0, means that my game system was measured for that quantity and it came up 0 - and that is a significant measure that compares, in a precise way to other systems. By way of analogy - if you were gathering statistics for the average amount of time that people spend rock-climbing each day, you wouldn't throw out the 0s.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

So we've established that we can't define whether a system is rules-light or rules-heavy, and that we can't agree on how to measure the time used. Sounds like we've answered the original poster's question.

 

[Ourph]

You DO have a measurable handling time, because (and I tabled this earlier but I'll say it now) 0 IS A NUMBER So saying that something has a measurable quantity of zero DOES NOT mean that something has no measurable value for that quantity!

It does if we only start measuring Handling Time when an instance of "Handling" occurs (i.e. - we start measuring when the game stops and the rules are consulted and stop measuring when the game resumes). If no instances of "Handling" take place during the session (the game never stops), the session provides no data. "No data" does not get an entry of 0 seconds, it gets an entry of "No data". The reason to make that distinction is that groups can have different levels of familiarity with the rules and can also have different levels of commitment to getting the rules right. If a group of players who are clueless about the rules of Rolemaster are playing Rolemaster and never look at the rulebooks in their 6 hour game session (but handle almost every rules situation incorrectly) they also would score an average Handling Time of 0 seconds. Similarly, if a group has been playing D&D twice a week for 5 years and has absolutely every rule they ever use completely memorized (and get it exactly right every time) then they also would have an average Handling Time of 0 seconds for their game session. Including those measurements in the study would be completely misleading, because we're not asking about how familiar the group is with the rules already or how committed they are to getting the rules correct. We're asking "Once the game is stopped to consult the rulebooks and answer a rules question, how long does it take come come up with a satisfactory answer and get back to the game". If the game never stops, then the session provides no answer to our question.

Look at it this way, if we were measuring the flight speed of an unladen swallow by clocking swallows who flew by our observation post with a radar gun - but we never saw a swallow during the entire time our experiment was running, we would NOT record the flight speed of an unladen swallow as 0mph (even though the only number our radar gun ever read during the entire experiment was 0mph). We would have to report a result of "No data" instead, because we didn't actually take any measurements.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Even if you could do this, would it matter? It's not as if there are two camps, rules light and rules heavy. There's really a fairly smooth continuum running from "playing make believe" to, say, Rolemaster. So even if you did a test with two points, what would it tell you? What if there is a knee in the curve -- a local min or max -- between those two points, or outside of them. If both points perform the same, does it mean the number of rules makes no difference, or are your choices insufficiently distinguished?

What you really want to know is not how long/much it takes to play, but what is more fun. When you come up with a reliable fun meter, let me know ...

 

[Ourph]

What you really want to know is not how long/much it takes to play, but what is more fun. When you come up with a reliable fun meter, let me know ...

Well, I think most gamers would agree that playing the game is more fun than spending time looking up rules, so comparing Handling Time can tell you how much time, relatively speaking, you'll be spending doing the "less fun" stuff. But I agree that it's not an objective measure of "total fun" in any way. As I said before, it's also never going to be a good indicator of rules-lite vs. rules-heavy, because whatever value in seconds you decide defines rules-lite is still going to be totally subjective.

As with most sociological issues, even something as strictly defined as HT isn't particularly valid as a measurement tool because it involves measuring human behavior. Some people will detest looking up rules and will hurry through the process, others will take their time. There are so many variables any data you get is really just an approximation of an average of a guess (again, typical for sociology experiments).

The point of suggesting this as an alternative metric wasn't necessarily to say "Someone should do this experiment because the data would be valid." but rather to say "The original measurement suggested is extremely poor because it exposes itself to too many variables; here's another measurement that's (by comparison) much better, but even this measurement is next to useless as far as drawing any real conclusions from it about what a particular person's experiences with a game will be like".

 

[yangnome]

Let’s suppose that you were able to grab a large enough sample and not only similar scenarios which could test the various factors and rates of play you are trying to test, but you were able to agree on what a rules heavy system is and what a rules light system is. You and your staff develop two different games systems, one rules heavy and one rules light (This will introduce two new systems which may decrease previous experience with either system.

The systems both support the same setting, a generic fantasy setting, same gods, same flavor…this will help reduce bias between the two settings and allow you to isolate the system as much as possible.

Let’s also assume that you have a large sample of groups (both of newbies and experienced gamers.) Each group will play both systems and their results in the various categories will be recorded. I suspect the newbie results may be skewed a bit no matter what you do because after the first game, they will be a little more familiar with what an RPG is.

Anyhow, you have all this worked out. Everything is perfect as possible. I suspect that the overall results will show that the two systems take approximately the same amount of time…however, this is not for the same reason that Ryan Dancy purports (or at least what I assume from the conclusion of his analysis of the test. I would guess that if you look closer at the data that if you look at each individual group, play time between the two systems will vary…probably a large difference.

The reason for this is not that one type of system is better than the other. Instead it lies in the preference and abilities of the group, and IMO to a larger part on the ability of a DM. As has been mentioned in the other thread, different people have different reactions to the different type systems. Some DMs prefer to have everything outlined for them and work better under this system. Others prefer a loose system and feel inhibited by a large set of rules.

I am not saying one is right or wrong, they are just different styles. Some people are good at math, others are good at art. Some people feel enabled by a large system, some people feel oppressed by it. Some people feel liberated by a light system and others feel lost. This is what is going to affect the speed of the game.

I likely believe that the tests that were conducted overall showed that the two systems take just as much time to run a game. I would be more interested in seeing the data based on each test sample.

This is similar to a situation if you polled the general population to see if people prefer urinating while standing or while sitting. Looking at the data as a whole, it would likely be very close to 50/50. Once you break it down between the different sexes, you’ll see that there is a large difference in preference and ability to perform under different circumstances.

 

[woodelf]

In thinking about this rules-light versus rules-heavy discussion, I wondered if attempting to recreate Dancey's so-called "test" were feasible. We could do something at Gen Con.

My thought was that we could have two groups, one using say, C&C, and one playing 3rd edition. [snip]

Is this feasible? Do you think it could be accomplished fairly?

not a good comparison: D&D3E and C&C are going for roughly the same end result in style of gameplay, so, of necessity, C&C is likely to require somewhat more GM adjudication (though, whether that would make up for the less rules to begin with, i don't know). *If* you were going to do something like this, you'd want to use something that is actually rules-lite. So, have one group playing D&D3E (or Conan OGL, or Grim Tales, or whatever) and the other playing Trollbabe (or Over the Edge, or whatever). Then give them both a comparable combat encounter, and a comparable social encounter, and a comparable puzzle. And then see who goes faster.

Oh, and for any kind of fairness, either both groups should be playing a game that they have years of experience with, or they should both be playing a game that none of them have ever played before (GM included). Or maybe both groups should be made up of players who've never played any RPG before, and GMs who've only had the books for a day to read.

[Which, btw, highlights where i think the difference is: based on my experiences, as well as others i've heard about, i'll put my money on OtE being much quicker for chargen and playing than D&D3E, if both groups are complete newbies to RPGs. Doubly-so if the GM is also a complete newbie. If both are groups of experienced players, but playing an unfamiliar system, i have no idea which game will run faster. If both are experienced groups, playing a system they're experienced with, i'm betting either tie, or the less-argumentative group is the fastest (irrespective of system).]