Sorry - I think the point was missed...

[JohnSnow]

I think so, and here it is: "A reasonable, but imperfect, GM is no less likely to make consistency-wrecking mistakes in a crunchy system than a rules-lite system, and may, in fact, be more likely, due to the greater volume of rules to keep track of."

Fair enough. However, I have to ask whether this is "assuming the GM follows the written rules of the game" or "in your actual play experience?"

The first can be argued to slow the game down (as the GM looks up rules). The second is an argument for inconsistency, but then I would counter that you're playing a rules-heavy game as if it were rules light, because you're not actually drawing on its written rules. Consequently, it's no more consistent, but it's probably not a lot slower in play either.

Over time, assuming the GM and his players try to learn the rules, the consistency factor from coming up with rulings on the fly should go up and the slowdown factor from looking up rules should go down. If all games used the same system, then all experience is cummulative, to the extent that the mechanics are consistent, and there's only one learning curve to travel along, not one for each game you play.

In fact, 3e advocates precisely this: make a ruling to the best of your recollection and move on with the game. Look it up later. The assumption is that over time you'll actually start making better and more consistent rulings. At least, that's how I understand it (and it's consistent with MY experience). And the OGL and d20 system are about addressing the learning curve issue.

At least, that's how I see it.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Ah, this may be where we differ. I don't think the rules should "serve the story," they should help to "create" the story. They should serve the RPG experience, which could be loosely referred to as "the game" (which is, I believe, how Psion means the phrase). That may be a subtle semantic distinction, or it may be huge. I feel that the experience of roleplaying games is about combining mechanics and imagination/story elements to create a story that surprises everyone. It's not about the players tromping around in a world entirely of the DM's imagination.

I have heard that last line referenced a lot on this forum, and I swear it's a definition of "story" I was not previously aware of. Whe're using "story" (or "the game" for that matter) as shorthand for "The shared creative input of players at the table."

Shared is the operative word there. Nobody arguing for rules-light is talking about the type of game where the GM plans everything out in advance, and the players just step through, A B C, and the GM's fanfic plays out at the table. I don't think that's particularly functional play under any system.

Tell me if I'm making sense, but maybe it's that rules-heavy games provide a high level of player control during tactical situations such as combat and task resolution? Under a GM with tight reins on "plot", where you have to go to the places he wants you to, I could see where suitably inclined players would feel like they still had plenty of control, because they had many rules-specified options during those tactical situations.

If someone was playing that kind of game under a rules-light system, I could see where the concerns you're mentioning could come up. After all, if that kind of game takes away the tactical element, what's left for the players to do?

If you're instead playing a game where the primary mode of player input isn't how to win conflicts posed by the GM, but in deciding which conflicts they want to get involved in, there's plenty of player choice. There's still definately an element of "gaming" as well, as (a) decisions the players make have a large impact on play, and (b) players are still involved in things like resource allocation and gambling risk vs. reward, perhaps at a more abstract level.

Take HeroQuest, for example. Entering a conflict means deciding on stakes, choosing the best relevant attribute, selecting augments, and wagering AP. (I've heard people say that poker players are very successful at HQ, so there's definately a strong game element there.) But the system applies equally to combat and to things like persuading the tribe to provide aid.

A linear module would get tossed out the window in the first half hour of play in HQ, because of the player's strong ability to influence the game world using the rules. The fact that combat is decided through choices about stakes and allocation of resources instead of specific tactical maneuvers doesn't lessen the player's power at all. Rather, it spreads that player power throughout the entire game.

(Again, if you take rules-light to mean C&C or AD&D 1/2e, I dunno. I haven't played those games. I'm talking about things like HeroQuest that have a specific play style for which the mechanics are geared. But I would imagine that trying to play C&C with additional "improvised" crunch to try to make it as complex as 3.x isn't using the system according to its design intent.)

 

[Akrasia]

Sorry, but what you're describing here is "roleplaying" or "worldbuilding," not roleplay-gaming. The gaming aspect comes when the roleplaying meets the mechanics...

I am not sure what this means.

I come up with a world setting, a set of NPCs, some potential plots, etc. Given that, players tell me what kinds of characters they would like to run, and what kinds of things they want out of the campaign.

Then I look for the game mechanics that I think can be used to best realize the setting, characters, stories, etc.

The fact that people use such diverse systems as FUDGE, Heroquest, and GURPS to run, for example, 'd20' settings like Iron Kingdoms of Midnight, reflects my understanding of the relation between setting and mechanics. In these cases, the players decide that some non-d20 system serves their understanding of, and interest in, the campaign better than d20.

The system should serve the players' understanding of the campaign, and what they want out of their gaming experience.

...
True. But the level of detail in the game is relevant to what aspects of the imagined situations are relevant to the game aspect of the "roleplaying game." A situation that is wholly imagined, but lacks mechanical impact is relevant in a roleplaying sense, but not from a game sense. …

I don't understand your distinction between the 'roleplaying' and 'game' aspects of RPGs here. Both interact to produce the RPG experience.

'Purely roleplaying' matters (PC goals; whether the PCs solve certain mysteries, secrets, etc; their plans for the future; the NPCs’ responses to the PCs' actions; etc) can have a *huge* impact on how the game is played, and on the course of the campaign.

…
…Ah, this may be where we differ. I don't think the rules should "serve the story," they should help to "create" the story. They should serve the RPG experience, which could be loosely referred to as "the game" … I feel that the experience of roleplaying games is about combining mechanics and imagination/story elements to create a story that surprises everyone. …

I prefer to start with a story or idea, and then find the rules that best suit it. Maybe other people like to start with the rules, and then come up with stories and ideas to suit that. Whichever comes first, once you have a campaign setting and a rules system, the two will interact during the gaming sessions that take place.

…It's not about the players tromping around in a world entirely of the DM's imagination…

I didn’t realize you were so opposed to homebrew settings and GM-created adventures.

And if the game rules are understood by everyone, what’s the problem?

 

[SweeneyTodd]

JohnSnow, would you mind taking a second to tell us what kinds of roleplaying games you enjoy and what you've played but disliked? I'm finding that's helping a lot in understanding where people are coming from.

If it turns out we're talking about totally different things when it comes to "rules-light" games, I promise to stop debating you.

 

[Akrasia]

...
Over time, assuming the GM and his players try to learn the rules, the consistency factor from coming up with rulings on the fly should go up and the slowdown factor from looking up rules should go down. If all games used the same system, then all experience is cummulative, to the extent that the mechanics are consistent, and there's only one learning curve to travel along, not one for each game you play. ....

The problem with the learning curve in 3e is that there is a kind of 'race' between increasing familiarity with the rules, and 'new rules/options available to the PCs -- and NPCs -- as they go up in levels.

As soon as the GM masters running 3e games for third level PCs (including generating and running appropriate opponents), they're already sixth level and trying out new feats, actions, spells (i.e. using new rules).

It can get to be a bit of a drag after a while. (Although I guess that over cumulative *campaigns* rules mastery can be achieved.)

Personally, I *hate* checking rules during a gaming session, and love 'mastering' the rules before I start a GM. This is why my 3e DM'ing experiences have not been as enjoyable as my experiences GM'ing other games.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

The problem with the learning curve in 3e is that there is a kind of 'race' between increasing familiarity with the rules, and 'new rules/options available to the PCs -- and NPCs -- as they go up in levels.

As soon as the GM masters running 3e games for third level PCs (including generating and running appropriate opponents), they're already sixth level and trying out new feats, actions, spells (i.e. using new rules).

It can get to be a bit of a drag after a while. (Although I guess that over cumulative *campaigns* rules mastery can be achieved.)

Personally, I *hate* checking rules during a gaming session, and love 'mastering' the rules before I start a GM. This is why my 3e DM'ing experiences have not been as enjoyable as my experiences GM'ing other games.

I believe the mastery is supposed to occur over cumulative campaigns, as you say. One of the reasons Ryan Dancey thought it important to try to have as much rules portability as possible, I suppose.

Anyway, as John Snow pointed out, 3e explicitly tells new DMs to make a ruling on the spot and check it after the session is over. That, IMO, is the best solution.

 

[JohnSnow]

Tell me if I'm making sense, but maybe it's that rules-heavy games provide a high level of player control during tactical situations such as combat and task resolution? Under a GM with tight reins on "plot", where you have to go to the places he wants you to, I could see where suitably inclined players would feel like they still had plenty of control, because they had many rules-specified options during those tactical situations.

If someone was playing that kind of game under a rules-light system, I could see where the concerns you're mentioning could come up. After all, if that kind of game takes away the tactical element, what's left for the players to do?

If you're instead playing a game where the primary mode of player input isn't how to win conflicts posed by the GM, but in deciding which conflicts they want to get involved in, there's plenty of player choice. There's still definately an element of "gaming" as well, as (a) decisions the players make have a large impact on play, and (b) players are still involved in things like resource allocation and gambling risk vs. reward, perhaps at a more abstract level.

Well, as Akrasia accurately points out, the GM comes up with the whole setting. In a sense, everything in the game world is his creation. If it then functions according to rules he made up, well, the player's input is minimal to say the least.

I can't be any clearer than the following two statements.

As a player, I like to believe my decisions and choices (both while playing AND during character creation) have relevance to the game's outcome. If I make one choice, A will happen, but if I make another choice, instead B will happen. Anything that takes away from that element does not necessarily help to create the game I want to play.

How is this complicated? You can't eliminate a level of detail from the rules and then claim it somehow magically exists. It's ridiculous.

I didn’t realize you were so opposed to homebrew settings and GM-created adventures.

That's hyperbole. I'm perfectly comfortable with the GM coming up with homebrew settings and creating adventures. I just don't want their outcome and path pre-determined before I start playing.

I said "entirely of the GM's imagination." In other words, if the sole point of my character is to be part of an overarching plot arc that the GM has predetermined, then it's pointless to play. The players should be a part of creating game world in collaboration with the GM. Granted, their contributions are going to be unequal. The GM has more control over most of the specifics, while the players have less. In fact, the one thing players truly do have control over (or should) is their own characters and the decisions those characters make. By eliminating the relevance of those choices, the GM is cutting back on his players' ability to contribute to the game.

The only level at which this cropped up in our gameplay was that you were the one writing the character backgrounds. I grant you did try to take our ideas into account, but the details of the character were mostly fleshed out by you. Now, I know you had your reasons, but I would have liked it if the process could have been more collaborative.

Asserting that options are somehow "unnecessary" simply because you don't like the added complexity is just unfair to those who are willing to put up with that complexity in exchange for those options. Claiming that the complexity doesn't increase the options isn't accurate. Claiming that you don't feel it's a necessary complexity is fine, but that's just an opinion, one that people are going to disagree with.

I just don't buy the "feel" argument thrown around about rules-light games. IMO, feel is mostly system independent. However, it may not be GM-skill independent and some GMs have a different skillset than others. For most GMs, some systems are probably "superior" to others from this standpoint. However, gaming books exist to provide rules for gaming. A gaming book with fewer rules is a simpler, but, in my opinion, less complete game.

That also doesn't make it "easy to play." Nothing truer has ever been said than "simple does not mean easy."

As I said earlier, I wanted to like C&C, but it just doesn't provide the level of options I want in my game. And this isn't about making a Celestial-Half-dragon-Drow-Paladin of Legend - it's about making something as simple and archetypal as a dex-based fighter/thief and having the existing game rules support that concept with rules-based, mechanical distinctions. I shouldn't have to invent new rules to cover basic archetypes - and my biggest gripe with D&D are in the areas where it falls short on that score.

As someone who engages in roleplay apart from my RPG experiences (as an amateur actor at the Ren Faire) , there is a significant and measurable difference between "roleplaying" and "playing an RPG." I realize that most rules-light games contain a resolution mechanic, but they gloss over what I consider to be relevant details. As an example, I'm sorry, but no amount of argument is going to convince me that an RPG doesn't need some way to model some characters being better than others (with roughly the same degree of experience) at two-weapon-fighting as a combat style. C&C, as an example, lacks such a rule. Instead, the designers tell me I should "make stuff up" if I want it in my game and they haven't included it. Well, I'm sorry, but I thought that's what I was paying them for: a mostly complete game (not totally accurate for C&C, since I didn't pay for it, but rather got it as a gift, but still ).

Finally, I believe MoogleEmpMog is correct that the mastery is supposed to accumulate over successive campaigns. Over time, you should know the rules for 8th-level spells as well as you know the ones for magic missile (ones every gamer who's ever played any version of D&D can probably recite). And if you're using the same system, over time, even the players learn the rules.

All of this is totally off Ryan's original point that, based on his observations, and in contradiction to his OWN anecdotal experiences, rules-light games did not actually PLAY any faster. You can scream that it doesn't match your experiences until you're blue in the face, but until someone produces an observational study with different data, I'm going to accept that Ryan is accurately reporting his findings. If that was the case and it doesn't match the body of anecdotal experience, then someyhing is screwy and should be investigated.

 

[greywulf]

Fascinating stuff, this. I'm with Ryan on this one, 100%. Credit where it's due, he does know what he's talking about.

A lot of "Rules-light" games are a myth; they don't simplify at all. FUDGE is a good case in point. The rules are simple, straightforward, and very streamlined. It also demands a LOT of work from the GM before a game can even be run. I've been there, done that. "Rules-heavy" games (and I don't think d20/D&D falls into that cetegory at all) also tend to require a lot of work from he GM, not least in finding the particular rules-reference, lookup tables, or refactoring the rules for easy reference during games. I'm thinking Rolemaster heavy here.

Both extremes are valid and worthwhile though, both have their place in role-playing canon and both CAN be fun.

That's because the rules themselves are just tools, nothing more. They're no more fun than a hammer or a chainsaw. Both of those tools aren't fun in themselves - it's what you do with them that makes them fun - and I can think of a lot of fun things to do with a chainsaw

So, "fun" isn't a factor of how heavy or light the rules are, provided the rules aren't poorly constructed in the first place. I don't know if anyone else remembers an old superhero game called "Golden Heroes". The character generation was great in that game, but the combat system was unplayably bad to the point that the game system itself DID interfere with the fun factor. To this day, I still don't understand the Parry rules.

To my mind, d20/D&D is "rules-medium", and has the balance about right; it's full credit to the deisgners for getting it spot on. That also means that there's plenty of room for slide. Want to make it lighter (lose AoE, limit the feats list, drop PrCs), that's cool. Want heavier (more PrCs, feats from everywhere, more crunch to combat), then that's cool too.

People ARE confusing "rules-light" with "rules-transparent" though. The D&D rules are an intrinsic part of the role-playing experience. It's hard to play a game without breaking out character and saying "roll d20", or "make a Reflex save" or whatever. The rules are pervasive, and some see that as a Bad Thing. Personally, I don't mind it. I don't think that "rules-transparent" storytelling systems add anything at all to the fun factor either. I've never liked the storytelling games because they just end up being ego trips for the more vocal player with no rules to restrain, control or guide them.

D&D is fun. Rolemaster is fun, FUDGE is fun - with the right GM, the right players and the right attitude. Even Golden Heroes was fun provided no one wanted to hit anything

Sorry for the long post. Great thread!

 

[Gentlegamer]

As I said earlier, I wanted to like C&C, but it just doesn't provide the level of options I want in my game. And this isn't about making a Celestial-Half-dragon-Drow-Paladin of Legend - it's about making something as simple and archetypal as a dex-based fighter/thief and having the existing game rules support that concept with rules-based, mechanical distinctions. I shouldn't have to invent new rules to cover basic archetypes - and my biggest gripe with D&D are in the areas where it falls short on that score.

It seems you approach FRPGs with a predetermined "character concept" independent of the actual campaign setting and theme.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Well, as Akrasia accurately points out, the GM comes up with the whole setting. In a sense, everything in the game world is his creation. If it then functions according to rules he made up, well, the player's input is minimal to say the least.

...I said "entirely of the GM's imagination." In other words, if the sole point of my character is to be part of an overarching plot arc that the GM has predetermined, then it's pointless to play. The players should be a part of creating game world in collaboration with the GM. Granted, their contributions are going to be unequal. The GM has more control over most of the specifics, while the players have less. In fact, the one thing players truly do have control over (or should) is their own characters and the decisions those characters make. By eliminating the relevance of those choices, the GM is cutting back on his players' ability to contribute to the game.

Okay, this is helpful; it gives a clear picture of your style of play. I can see that you'd be miserable with light mechanics under this style of play. I mean, take away what the rules give you, there's nothing left!

But the people who are advocating rules-light games Do Not Play This Style. Seriously. You said it yourself, it'd be miserable. I agree.

And we're not arguing for it. I don't take it as a given at all that the GM imposes a predetermined, overarching plot arc on the players. I don't take it a given that the players only have control over the space within their PC's skin. I don't take it a given that the GM has any right at all to block creative input from the players except where the rules specifically give that power to the player.

I can't be any clearer than the following two statements.

As a player, I like to believe my decisions and choices (both while playing AND during character creation) have relevance to the game's outcome. If I make one choice, A will happen, but if I make another choice, instead B will happen. Anything that takes away from that element does not necessarily help to create the game I want to play.

I agree with that completely. But I don't reach the same conclusion as you, because we're working on different assumptions. Players should absolutely be empowered to make meaningful decisions. I disagree that the only way they can do so is by being provided specific mechanical options.

In a game that uses more abstract conflict resolution like HeroQuest, a fight might be resolved in one roll. But the player isn't just deciding "How do I fight", but "Do I fight at all, and why?" In games where the resolution mechanisms are more abstract, the mechanics are still a tool to make these meaningful decisions. I personally find that a lot more interesting than deciding whether to Grapple or Bull Rush a guy the GM has dictated I have to fight.

Some rules-light games provide mechanisms for players to frame scenes and declare conflicts. Several include director-stance mechanics that allow players to directly alter the game world. These aren't systems that are trying to limit player power or decisionmaking at all.

So to sum up, if
- GM runs the characters through a preplanned story arc,
- Players are only given meaningful decisions to make in tactical situations, and are creatively negated elsewhere,
- System provides a wide variety of tactical options that the GM cannot negate,

Oh heck yeah, you would want to use a complex tactical system. Otherwise you can't do anything! (And God forbid you're in a game like this and aren't interested in tactics.)

But to be honest: Is anyone advocating this style of play here?