Rules-Lite VS "Crunchy" TTRPG Systems

[AbdulAlhazred]

No, YOU answered it; Pemerton dissembled around it.

It feels very much like pedantry on Pemerton's part to avoid admitting that, fundamentally, the rules require the GM to accept player narrations about their character, and is to riff off of anything they narrate outside it but in genre.

Well, IMHO, the really practically important point is how the GM's job description is like a little engine that pushes the game forward at all times. The players kind of drive things by saying what they do, but the GM is the one insuring that they HAVE to say something. Like in AW, the GM would NEVER EVER EVER say "yeah, the sun sets on a harsh day, but all your supplies are secure, the people are happy, and you can sleep in peace now..." I mean, IF the GM in my AW game DID say that, you can be blasted sure it is just a sucker move! Next I get to make some situation specific Hard Holder move that undoubtedly precipitates the next round of apocalyptic nonsense, because it is APOCALYPSE WORLD, not 'Happy Ending World'.

 

[Cadence]

I mean, this is where the whole discussion of what is 'rules lite' gets complicated. I agree, you could describe a d20 game as 'rules lite' in a similar sense, but as a rule they add a LOT more 'chrome'. I am certainly not saying d20 cannot be rules lite though. However, in core terms, PbtA games seem to me to more compactly contain the "stuff which makes a game move forward" than most actual d20 games do. That is, just describing a d20 mechanic, in a bare sense, isn't a complete game at all. The first 17 or so pages of Dungeon World OTOH pretty much is! (well, I'd add the first few pages of the GM section perhaps).

Now I'm wondering how a rewritten set of d20 rules would look if the "stuff which makes the game move forward" were clearer and put up front and the separate pieces that are more flavoring for that (spells, racial abilities, whatnot) were then separated out. (Might have to take a stab at it next time I'm desperate to avoid IRL work).

 

[pemerton]

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?

I thought that you meant the player's action declaration doesn't trigger a player-side move. If you're asking, "What does the GM do if they can't think of a GM-side move to make" my answer is "Think harder for another 30 seconds or so!" The GM moves for AW - which inclue their front/threat moves - encompass the totality of what the GM might want to say.

 

[GrimCo]

I'm in the team medium crunch.

While I like Cairn, which is light system, i find it's lack of mechanical character progression boring. It's good for one shot or maybe short story, but not for long campaigns.

By contrast, i played Window for some time. That thing is, rules wise, about one step above pure improv free form.

On the other hand, too crunchy and i'm out. First thing that comes to mind is PF2.

Give me happy medium. Enough crunch for mechanical growth in character power/experience, but light enough so i can whip out basic starting character in 15 minutes.

 

[pemerton]

It feels very much like pedantry on Pemerton's part to avoid admitting that, fundamentally, the rules require the GM to accept player narrations about their character, and is to riff off of anything they narrate outside it but in genre.

It's not pedantry.

The whole design of Apocalypse World is that the GM is ultimately in control of the direction of events - riffing off the players' action declarations for their PCs - until a player triggers a player-side move. At that point, the GM (like the player) is subject to the resolution rules for that move.

I gave the box example. In many threads, which I'm sure both you and @Thomas Shey have participated in from time to time, I've given other examples.

If a player declares an action that hands the GM an opportunity on a plate, the GM is entitled to make a hard move in response. That's not "say 'yes'" - it's quite the opposite!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Now I'm wondering how a rewritten set of d20 rules would look if the "stuff which makes the game move forward" were clearer and put up front and the separate pieces that are more flavoring for that (spells, racial abilities, whatnot) were then separated out. (Might have to take a stab at it next time I'm desperate to avoid IRL work).

Yeah, I feel like what gets complicated is these games beg for a lot of additional stuff to support "what happens when..." whereas games which run on "adjudicate my intent" or simply "figure out what happens next when I..." (the later being PbtA generally speaking, while the former might be more something like BW) don't, in principle, NEED to have subsystems that adjudicate outcomes, so they could be a lot more compact.

Not to say that, in fact, games like BW or PbtA games, are actually lighter. I think there's just a tendency for game designers to burn up their complexity budget and practical page count one way or another. I mean, if you create a game and its 25 pages, it becomes hard to call it a product... lol.

 

[SableWyvern]

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

No gaming sounds a lot better to me than gaming with people I don't trust. Clearly some people feel differently, but I don't get it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No gaming sounds a lot better to me than gaming with people I don't trust. Clearly some people feel differently, but I don't get it.

As I noted, I don't trust anyone's judgement to an unlimited degree. If that was a requirement, I doubt I'd do much of anything with anyone. Heck, I don't trust my judgement to an unlimited degree.

 

[SableWyvern]

As I noted, I don't trust anyone's judgement to an unlimited degree. If that was a requirement, I doubt I'd do much of anything with anyone. Heck, I don't trust my judgement to an unlimited degree.

Sure, but I don't think anyone is talking about unlimited trust, and no one engaged this discussion in good faith interprets trust in this context to mean, "I trust this person to always make the best possible decision, no matter how high the stakes, how high the pressure, how quickly a decision needs to be made, how strong their conflict of interest, how complex the situation, etc..." We're playing a game here, not conducting triage in an emergency ward during a natural disaster.

In the context of a TTRPG, I would say that trusting the GM would generally mean that you believe they're capable of using the power they have to make fair, consistent and reasonable decisions in line with established expectations, that will result in a generally fun experience, and they're open to constructive feedback and discussion, with the understanding that everyone is there to have fun. Basically, they're a reasonable person, just like everyone else at the table. In such a circumstance, there should be no requirement for rules that prevent an abuse of trust.

It's clear that some people want rules designed to prevent GMs (or players, for that matter) from acting unreasonably, when I would simply not play with unreasonable people.

 

[aramis erak]

@SableWyvern
My view on trust is that I categorize trust in multiple fields...
My buddy RMQ I can trust with my car, i can trust with my phone, but I can't trust him to pay back $5... And his approach to rules is much too lax for me as a player to be comfortable; I can trust him to piss me off when he's the GM, so I haven't played in a game he's run since 1990...
My former neighbor MM, I can trust him with gaming books for up to a week. But I can't trust him to run the game he claims to run, neither to use the rules claimed, nor to be fair. I also cannot trust him to actually play the species in game by the rules of that campaign instead of what he thinks they should be. So, he's not been in one of my games since 3 sessions in, and yet, he has allowed me to proctor character gen for his Rolemaster game. And 2-3 of his 4-7 players would be generating new RM characters weekly. I can, however, trust him with "$20 until payday"...

When it comes to GMing, I see the rules as a contract. Since most don't, I have to assume they're lying about the rules in force until I see that they're using the rules agreed upon. At which point, I start to extend a little trust. The more I see the game being handled in a manner I approve of the more trust I have in that GM.
If I don't play with people I don't trust, I can't get to trusting them, and that becomes a block to not being behind the shield.
And I roll in the open so players can see what I'm doing, unless the rules explicitly call for hidden rolls, or the players complain about it unanimously. (I had players complain about me rolling in the open in a D&D 5 adventure at a con. Not all. I pointed out that very few rolls are required to be hidden.)
I don't expect players to trust me on rules; I'm fine with limited in-session or more deep post-session discussion of rules... because I see the rules as a contract.
one of the other users round here has first hand experience of me retconning because I mishandled a rule, and of me not retconning, but correcting my interpretation for later use... (which is determined by whether or not the mishandle is in player favor. If it was, no retcon. )

So, when I get to play, I don't expect to trust the GM to use the rules appropriately nor to be fair until I've experienced their GMing. One of the players in my weekly store game I'd not want to play in their game - they're at the mix-n-match D&D+Rifts+something else in a fluid hybrid of ever changing rules... that would drive me off the tall end of the cliff...

But this is a tangent.
bringing it back towards rules vs crunch...

Some of the crunchiest games I've run, ones where the mechanics are in your face ALL THE «bleep»ing time, have been fairly simple rulesets...

• D&D BX played the way we played in the 80's — a narrative wargame of dungeon clearance, completely unlike what several OSR types publishers of younger generations claim to think was standard in 1981...
• Rolemaster: the core mechanic is simple; the tables to apply it across a wide field of endeavors are only 2 pages for non-attack non-spell actions most of the time. But the tables for combat and magic make it a lot of referencing. SImilarly Spacemaster, MERP, and Cyberspace.
• Starships and Spacemen - it's got five simple mechanics of player note, and they're used a lot:
  • 1d20 ≤ Attribute, (to hit ranged and most other att/skill uses)
  • 1d6+Attribute (melee) opposed with results from a short table,
  • spending ship's power (to do a variety of things)
  • marking damage against ST, until 0, when you die.
  • using a computer to ask 1d6 questions (+1 more if a science officer) of either yes/no or of single number
• MegaTraveller - the task system is used a lot, and it's the core mechanic of the game. Combat adds 12 pages of equipment tables, and 3 pages of actual combat mechanics. Plus the 6 pages of task system. (The earlier version for use with CT had a 2 page presence

To answer @Umbran 's question about "Standard Dungeon Raiding Parties" - the type of party encouraged by having adventures that have little story and lots of things to kill remorselessly, often fueled by GM misinterpreting "Defeat" as "force to surrender or die" and the assorted advice in Dragon in the early 80's. And it's the type of party that KODT features as the archetypal (yet exaggerated) humorously bad groups. A good number of DDAL adventures for seasons 1-3 were of the "Kill them all and take their stuff" mode of play; it's a style I've heard of anecdotally from most of the free world and all generations.

It certainly was a supported style. It wasn't the only style of the era, either, but it was, due to access, the style of D&D I was able to encounter; Traveller lead me to story mattering.