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

[fredramsey]

I guess this all boils down to one question - what did Dancey hope to achieve with his test? We've already ascertained within about 20 posts on here that such a test would be faulty on many levels.

Or did he do a test at all, or just pull stuff out of his ass?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Gentlegamer]

You would need control groups that don't know they are being observed. You would need groups playing "naturally" with the rules.

But, to make it a "true" test, Quasqueton would have to coach the d20 players on how to handle combat correctly.

 

[der_kluge]

Was there some confusion over which of the two was more comparitively rules light or heavy?

I don't think light or heavy is black or white. I think there are degrees. But I still think there are differences of opinion over what exactly constitutes "light" or "heavy".

If I were to attempt a definition, I would say:

rules heavy is the addition of rules that add little to the actual game play.

One could argue that things like "counter-spelling" are not necessary to create a good game, and only serve to complicate matters.

 

[fredramsey]

That's going way too far into opinion, in my opinion

But that does touch on the heart of the matter: What is Rules Lite?

I don't think light or heavy is black or white. I think there are degrees. But I still think there are differences of opinion over what exactly constitutes "light" or "heavy".

If I were to attempt a definition, I would say:

rules heavy is the addition of rules that add little to the actual game play.

One could argue that things like "counter-spelling" are not necessary to create a good game, and only serve to complicate matters.

 

[Quasqueton]

I guess this all boils down to one question - what did Dancey hope to achieve with his test? We've already ascertained within about 20 posts on here that such a test would be faulty on many levels.

Maybe he/they just wanted to learn?

"Is there a time benefit to having less rules in a game system over having more rules in a game system?"

<do some studies>

"Hmm. Well it seems that less rules does not necessarily mean a time saving in actual game play."


Doing the study was more worthwhile and informative than what many people on this board do -- state something as fact without any actual data/facts to back up the statement.

It's ironic that their doing an actual study is poo-pooed. Apparently anecdotes and preconceived perceptions are more than enough evidence for folks around here. "We don't need no steenkin' facts."

Quasqueton

 

[Quasqueton]

What is Rules Lite?

It's like "What is large?" Or "What is expensive?"

Quasqueton

 

[fredramsey]

What is Rules Lite?

It's like "What is large?" Or "What is expensive?"

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

 

[der_kluge]

It's like "What is large?" Or "What is expensive?"

Quasqueton

I thought you had work to do.

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

What were his intentions? What did he hope to try to prove? And could there be any feasible experiment to prove his hypothesis? I don't think so. I think there are far too many other variables which will skew whatever results he was trying to arrive at.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Doing the study was more worthwhile and informative than what many people on this board do -- state something as fact without any actual data/facts to back up the statement.

It's ironic that their doing an actual study is poo-pooed. Apparently anecdotes and preconceived perceptions are more than enough evidence for folks around here. "We don't need no steenkin' facts."

Quasqueton

His methodology is questioned, just as you question the methodology of this proposed "test."

 

[hexgrid]

Maybe he/they just wanted to learn?

"Is there a time benefit to having less rules in a game system over having more rules in a game system?"

<do some studies>

"Hmm. Well it seems that less rules does not necessarily mean a time saving in actual game play."


Doing the study was more worthwhile and informative than what many people on this board do -- state something as fact without any actual data/facts to back up the statement.

It's ironic that their doing an actual study is poo-pooed. Apparently anecdotes and preconceived perceptions are more than enough evidence for folks around here. "We don't need no steenkin' facts."

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.