Rules-Lite VS "Crunchy" TTRPG Systems

[GuardianLurker]

Unfortunately, I can't answer that one - I've never played in a PBtA (or its derivatives) game. Nor do I own a copy of the rules.

I know there's a strong "player empowerment" thread in game design these days. I think that'd just invert the problem, not fix it. And while is mitigated by the semi-fractious and independent nature of most gamers, it'd be even worse if the players represented a unified front.

Then again, my understanding is that most of the "player empowerment" games greatly reduce or eliminate the GM's role entirely.

@overgeeked I'll yield to you on that. My experience is a lot more limited in that regard (unhappily). Can you provide an example of a rules-heavy referee-less TTRPG?

 

[TwoSix]

Unfortunately, I can't answer that one - I've never played in a PBtA (or its derivatives) game. Nor do I own a copy of the rules.

I know there's a strong "player empowerment" thread in game design these days. I think that'd just invert the problem, not fix it. And while is mitigated by the semi-fractious and independent nature of most gamers, it'd be even worse if the players represented a unified front.

Then again, my understanding is that most of the "player empowerment" games greatly reduce or eliminate the GM's role entirely.

@overgeeked I'll yield to you on that. My experience is a lot more limited in that regard (unhappily). Can you provide an example of a rules-heavy referee-less TTRPG?

I think in your standard D&D-type game paradigm, generally more rules equals "more rules granting players specific abilities for their character", so in that sense, rules-heavy games are more "player empowering".

A rules-heavy GM-less game might be something like Gloomhaven, in which the rules are essentially a module plus an automated GM function. Or maybe a world-building RPG like a Microscope, although that's probably more "rules-medium".

No referee lightweight rules would be something like Fiasco, which is essentially a story prompt and a way to pass the story author baton as needed.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That depends. Are storygames like PBtA considered rules light (I hate "lite")? Because those games put pretty solid limits on GM authority compared to more traditional systems.

I'd argue that's because to some extent, they've clipped off the borders. What I mean by that is that in a lot of them, they've constrained cases where the GM has any real say in the sense we think to choice of Moves and the like, and if something doesn't fall into a move for any reason, its assumed the answer is "yes". There's no need, desire or (in a sense) even permission for a GM to just stick his oar in outside of the permitted space. Most rules light games are all about the borders, so they produce a vastly different dynamic.

 

[pemerton]

That depends. Are storygames like PBtA considered rules light (I hate "lite")? Because those games put pretty solid limits on GM authority compared to more traditional systems.

I'd argue that's because to some extent, they've clipped off the borders. What I mean by that is that in a lot of them, they've constrained cases where the GM has any real say in the sense we think to choice of Moves and the like, and if something doesn't fall into a move for any reason, its assumed the answer is "yes". There's no need, desire or (in a sense) even permission for a GM to just stick his oar in outside of the permitted space. Most rules light games are all about the borders, so they produce a vastly different dynamic.

I'm not 100% sure I've followed this, but it doesn't seem like an accurate description of Apocalypse World to me. For instance, there is no "say 'yes'" rule in AW.

 

[aramis erak]

I remain confused that so many people are OK playing games with GMs they don't trust.

For many, it is that or no game at all.
For me, I don't trust ANY GM.

 

[Umbran]

For many, it is that or no game at all.
For me, I don't trust ANY GM.

So... do you run games yourself?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm not 100% sure I've followed this, but it doesn't seem like an accurate description of Apocalypse World to me. For instance, there is no "say 'yes'" rule in AW.

What is done if someone declares an action and there's no apparent proper Move?

 

[aramis erak]

I'm not 100% sure I've followed this, but it doesn't seem like an accurate description of Apocalypse World to me. For instance, there is no "say 'yes'" rule in AW.

I've seen (on the BW forums) Jared, Luke, and Thor all point out that Vincent expected "say yes" as a baseline, provided the story isn't lagging.
And while not spelled out so succinctly, certain portions are informed by same, especially by reading a bit into the basic converstation

The players’ job is to say what their characters say and
undertake to do, first and exclusively; to say what their characters think,
feel and remember, also exclusively; and to answer your questions
about their characters’ lives and surroundings. Your job as MC is to say
everything else: everything about the world, and what everyone in the
whole damned world says and does except the players’ characters.

ANd in the bit about "Barf forth apocalyptica"

Barf forth apocalyptica. Cultivate an imagination full of harsh
landscapes, garish bloody images, and grotesque juxtapositions. In
Apocalypse World, when the rain falls it’s full of 􀃫ne black grit like toner,
and all the plants’ leaves turn gray from absorbing it. Out among the
wrecked cars, wild dogs 􀃫ght for territory, with each other and with the
rats, and one of the breeds is developing a protective inner eyelid of blank
bone. If you get too close to them you can hear the click-click when they
blink.

So... do you run games yourself?

Yep. And I also play, from time to time, with GM's I don't trust.
I also let players check me on rules.

 

[pemerton]

I've seen (on the BW forums) Jared, Luke, and Thor all point out that Vincent expected "say yes" as a baseline, provided the story isn't lagging.

"Say 'yes' or roll the dice" is obviously a key precept in DitV, and BW incorporates it.

But AW doesn't say it anywhere. For instance, you quote the example of the GM narrating the click-clack eyelids of the rats - if a player declares "I want to check out those rats - I drop a box on one of them so I can catch it", the GM is not obliged to narrate success. They can make any appropriate move.

What is done if someone declares an action and there's no apparent proper Move?

As per pp 116-17 of the AW rulebook,

Whenever there’s a pause in the conversation and everyone looks to you to say something, choose one of these things [ie a GM move] and say it. . . .

Always choose a move that can follow logically from what’s going on in the game’s fiction. It doesn’t have to be the only one, or the most likely, but it does have to make at least some kind of sense.

Generally, limit yourself to a move that’ll (a) set you up for a future harder move, and (b) give the players’ characters some opportunity to act and react. A start to the action, not its conclusion.​

If the player declares they drop their box on a rat, maybe the GM tells them that the rat is caught - offering an opportunity, possibly with a cost (clicky-clacky rats probably don't like being trapped under boxes). Or maybe the GM says "Your box lands over the rat, and quick as a flash it chews right through it! What do you do?" - taking away their stuff and also, probably, announcing future badness - these rats mean business!

There is no assumption that player's declared actions achieve what they want.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There is no assumption that player's declared actions achieve what they want.

That didn't answer the question, Pemerton.

If no apparent Move seems to be a response to the player's decoration, what does the GM do?