Sorry - I think the point was missed...

[Turjan]

1) Ryan is not the first person to point to the quality of player empowerment with more rules heavy game. Robin Laws, in his book on Good Gamemastering, points this out as well. And if you think he's some frothing rules light hater, you missed Feng Shui.

If you read precisely, I did not question this point in my original post. And I have two nice games by Robin Laws (amongst others) myself: HeroQuest and the Dying Earth. HeroQuest looks like rules-light, but is more rules-medium. 'The Dying Earth' is rules-light, but not your normal RPG; you have to love to lose confrontations in order to like it.

2) Yes, there are exceptions, but I beleive that is because the terms rules light and rules heavy are inprecise. The quality of player empowerment by addressing common issues more explicitly vice GM fiat has a strong positive correlation to the rules heavy / light axis. Noting that they are not the same can help refine the issue, but using it as a nitpick just hinders communication.

A good point. It's probably necessary to speak about specific games, when we talk about 'rules-light'. This lack of definition leads to the situation that much of the discussion further above consists of talking at cross-purposes.

3) Is there really such a thing as "illusion" when you are talking about a shared imaginary activity? I've said myself before that railroading (or lack of it) is in part just an illusion -- but one that when properly perpetrated contributes to the enjoyment of the game.

I was hesitating for a moment when I wrote 'illusion' in my original post, because I'm aware of the fact that the whole game is nothing but an illusionary adventure. Obviously, different players need a different number of veils (given by game mechanics) between themselves and the simple truth that the basically don't have any power in the game in order to make the make-belief work. Just look at that rock example, where several people cried 'GM arbitrariness' when just given a DC, but saw some kind of player empowerment, when just given the weight of the rock, which the GM had previously calculated from his target DC in order to enable the player to calculate the target DC from the weight. That's why the preference for rules-light and rules-heavy games is often different between players and GMs, as die kluge already put it, as in my case. I know that this is not true in your case .

 

[Akrasia]

1) Ryan is not the first person to point to the quality of player empowerment with more rules heavy game. Robin Laws, in his book on Good Gamemastering, points this out as well. And if you think he's some frothing rules light hater, you missed Feng Shui...

I haven't read Laws' book, so I cannot comment on what his point is there.

However, I think a distinction between 'explicit' and 'implicit' power might be helpful here. A rules heavy system might 'empower' players by giving them more 'explicit' power (viz. many rules that they can 'use'). I think this is ultimately an illusion, but I can see how a rules heavy system might create that impression. In contrast, a rules light system grants considerable 'implicit' power to players -- because most such games rely on cooperation and trust among all the participants.

...
3) Is there really such a thing as "illusion" when you are talking about a shared imaginary activity? I've said myself before that railroading (or lack of it) is in part just an illusion -- but one that when properly perpetrated contributes to the enjoyment of the game.

I suppose that the "illusion" of "power" (or "control", or whatever) might enhance some players' enjoyment of games, especially if they are concerned with such things.

IME, having GMed both 'rules medium' and 'rules heavy' systems, I have never noticed any difference in *my* "power". (Well, except for the time I GMed Buffy -- in that case, I *did* notice that players could use drama points to significantly alter the nature of the 'episode'. But BtVS is clearly on the 'lighter' end of the spectrum. And I didn't really see that as a diminishment of my "power" -- rather, I saw it as a manifestation of the cooperative nature of the game.) In both cases I've used the rules available to design the world and scenario exactly as I wanted (and have found this easier to do with rules lighter systems) -- and in both cases I've tried to accommodate the players' concerns and interests.

If one of my players *thinks* he/she exercised "more power" when I GMed a 'rules heavy' game than when I GMed a 'rules light/medium' game ... well, I think I'd get a chuckle from that.

 

[Turjan]

For what it is worth, here are some games that I enjoy GM'ing, that are all 'lighter' than 3e (though they are really 'rules medium', at least in comparison to games like Fudge or Everway):

~ Warhammer FRP (2nd ed.);
~ Castles and Crusades;
~ True 20 (keeps a lot of the options of 3e, but in a simpler, more streamlined package);
~ Cinematic Unisystem (Angel/Buffy -- even if you don't care for the show, the Angel rules make for an excellent 'generic' modern RPG)

Thanks for the tips. I have the WFRPG2, but I'm not sure whether 'grim and gritty' is the style we are all after. C&C deemed more suitable for people with an intimate knowledge of AD&D, which I don't have, and I heard that the rulebook is not really complete without AD&D background material. True20 has evaded all my attempts at achieving it so far (3 orders cancelled by the vendor), and modern fantasy like Buffy is not really my style. Sorry for being such a complicated customer . I tried HeroQuest, but it seems to complicated for the players (they don't have that much time, either, and HeroQuest is hard to spoon-feed). I'm not sure whether I should try FATE. Let's see what RuneQuest brings.

 

[JohnSnow]

If one of my players *thinks* he/she exercised "more power" when I GMed a 'rules heavy' game than when I GMed a 'rules light/medium' game ... well, I think I'd get a chuckle from that.

Nope. But, just speaking for myself, I was more invested in the character and had more fun.

And what exactly was that comment you made about not GMing for the power it granted you?

As a player, I prefer to know more about the world in which our shared gaming experience takes place so that I can create my character's background, not have the GM do it for me.

That desire for understanding the world extends into the rules under which its "reality" operates. Since it's a fantasy game, I have at best two sources of that reality. One is the gamemaster, and the other is the rules.

I submit that any game where things are in writing is going to be more consistent than one in which they are not. As a player, that consistency helps fuel my impression of the gaming world as a real place, operating under normal rules (albeit different ones than the "real world"). The more rules-light a game is, the more it sacrifices by-the-book consistency for simplification. That's a choice they make ON PURPOSE by removing rules. As a player, I have more faith in my GM to be consistent if he has more of his world's rules written down, whether by the game or ones he writes himself.

Is the GM the ultimate arbiter of consistency? Sure. But don't players have the right to expect certain actions to be resolved the same way every time? As a GM, the onus of consistency is on me to the extent that it's not covered by the rules. That's an enormous burden to carry. Some piece of it is inevitable, but minimizing that burden should be the goal of a rule system. Some GMs shoulder that burden easily.

But any GM who doesn't realize that he's under that burden is really saying "So what if I'm inconsistent?" And that GM is not providing a consistent world for his players. It might still be fun, especially if the GM excels at other aspects of the roleplaying game experience, but it's not going to be AS fun.

And how you make those tradeoffs is a VERY personal decision.

That's all I'm saying.

Oh, from my perspective, "squidgy" = inconsistent.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Snow, perhaps you also object to the title "Game Master." Would you feel more comfortable with "Game Custodian" or "Game Trustee" . . . ?

 

[Akrasia]

Nope. But, just speaking for myself, I was more invested in the character and had more fun.

Well, I'm sorry to hear that. Perhaps if the campaign had had time to develop, you would have become more attached to your new PC. I would like to think that one's 'investment' in a character has primarily to do with the world and story. And I'm surprised that the you saw no benefit in the faster pace.

And what exactly was that comment you made about not GMing for the power it granted you?

Sorry, but you misunderstood my point -- or, rather, I was not clear enough. The chuckle would be from how alien the whole perspective of 'relative power' would be to me, and the way in which I run my games.

 

[Dragonblade]

Hey Ryan,

Thanks for dropping in. Please don't refrain from posting your thoughts because of the small vocal minority of anti-Dancey people.

Personally, from both my professional business background and from my own personal role-play experience, I find your insights and analysis fascinating. If you see my other thread, I have long pondered why some gaming experiences provide a sense of wonder and fun, and why some do not.

I agree with pretty much everything you have had to say. I think its a shame that you are no longer involved with WotC and game design, though. I would be most interested in seeing d20's evolution with you at the helm.

 

[Akrasia]

...
The more rules-light a game is, the more it sacrifices by-the-book consistency for simplification. That's a choice they make ON PURPOSE by removing rules. ...

This is a generalization that is simply *not* true of all rules light games (and I am amazed at how persistent some people are in asserting it). It rests on a mistaken assumption, viz. 'rules light' = 'rules inadequate' (i.e. 'lightness' is achieved by 'removing rules').

There is *nothing* intrinsic to rules light games that requires them to sacrifice 'consistency'. Rather, rules light game systems often simply provide *more general* rules and resolution mechanisms. There is nothing preventing these rules from being perfectly consistent -- they just are more general (i.e. they incorporate fewer exceptions and modifiers for different situations).

Now, if you want your games to 'simulate' different situations closely, you probably should not play a 'rules light' game. Trying to apply a rules light system in a 'simulationist' manner (i.e. applying all kinds of 'fine-tuned' modifiers to different situations) will very likely lead to inconsistent rulings over time. But, as I just mentioned, rules light systems are not meant for that kind of gaming.

 

[Gentlegamer]

Akrasia describes it correctly. I'd also add that "rules lite" games also have more "rules space" in them to add or subract rules or rules subsets without upsetting the overall balance of the system. That is, the use of house rules in either an addititive or subractive manner doesn't throw the whole thing out of whack.

 

[Turjan]

This is a generalization that is simply *not* true of all rules light games (and I am amazed at how persistent some people are in asserting it). It rests on a mistaken assumption, viz. 'rules light' = 'rules inadequate' (i.e. 'lightness' is achieved by 'removing rules').

An important point. I'd also like to raise the question how adequate rules are that are so complicated that even the company publishing these rules is not able to dish out supplements without loads of errors. Or what else are John Cooper's reviews indicative of?