Sorry - I think the point was missed...

[woodelf]

Yes, it is my favorite show. I understand what you mean, however crafting this sort of storyline is a LOT of effort (even JMS said he was almost entirely burned out from writing the series) and in order to do it properly, you need absolute control. Which, as a DM, you normally don't. The rules decide things happen one way, the PCs decide it happens another and you want it to happen a 3rd way. That's why I don't try to weave such a complicated story in an RPG. It's doomed to failure.

Is this what the basic idea behind the rules light movement is? That if the rules don't get in the way of telling a complicated story then their only obsticle is the players? I suppose if you can twist the rules around however you need them to fit your story, then it does help tell it. If the players are willing to go wherever you send them, I guess you might be able to try something like a detailed campaign arc.

It's not a "movement"--that is, those who are enjoying, and possibly championing, rules-lite games are no more homogeneous in their tastes than those playing crunchy games (look at the Hero vs. GURPS vs. Tri-Stat threads, or D&D vs. everything else). But that's just a nitpick.

Part of the problem here is, i think people are talking past each other, due to a lack of proper terminology existing. Strictly speaking, "rules lite" means just that: fewer rules. However, in practice, the vast majority of rules lite games currently available also embody a significant shift in playstyle, usually to a more narrativist or narrativist/gamist stance (from the gamist or gamist/simulationist stance of most commercially-visible RPGs). The term has come to imply much more than it says--just as "diceless" in the context of RPGs is generally taken to mean "randomizerless", and not be used to describe, say, Castle Falkenstein (which did not use dice); "rules lite" in the context of RPGs generally means (at least when used by those who are advocates) "uses simple narrative mechanics to empower the players". I think i've even been guilty of this myself in this thread.

And it's not just coincidence or blinders--there's a real connection. As several people in this thread have argued, trying to have a heavily-gamist/simulationist tactical RPG with the level of mechanical detail that most rules-lite games provide would be almost impossible. And is probably part of why most rules-lite games have shown up in the last 7 years: it took a fundamental shift in paradigm to make a *viable* rules-lite game--one that didn't just feel like an incomplete or sloppy game.

Anyway, i can't speak for others, nor am i an expert in the internal motives of the designers of other rules-lite RPGs (reference "we're not a movement", above), i think you've got it half right. Initially, fueled in large part by WWGS's rhetoric in their "storytelling" games, the motivation was to "get the rules out of the way" so that better narratives could come from the game. It doesn't really work, however. [At least in part because the Storyteller system isn't really any lighter than the games it was railing against. But even with games that really are significantly lighter, but of that style.] In response to the problems with that strategy [the rules were out of the way, and it didn't make much story difference; those who wanted more tactical detail were sometimes frustrated], people started experimenting more and more with different sorts of RPG mechanics--ones that interacted with the personality, and then the story [rather than just the world].

And thus the current rules-lite crop of games was eventually born. These don't try and get out of the way of the story, they actively try and shape it. So, going back to the B5 example, the player of G'Kar might have a character trait something like "will die at the hands of Mollari, 3d" or something like that. His other traits might be, "Narn partisan, 4d" and "spiritual, 6d", and "powerful build, 4d" [and some others--this is just an example]. So, if he wants to succeed at forcing a door open, he gets to roll 4 dice. If he wants to force a door open to kill some Centauri, he gets to roll 8 dice. If he wants to force a door open to kill some Centauri and save a Narn spiritual leader, he could roll 14 dice. And--and this is the important part--if he's in a dangerous situation that could lead to his death in some way other than at the hands of Mollari, he can roll another 3 dice. Of course, in a fight with Mollari, he might have to roll 3 fewer dice than he otherwise would in a fight. Or something like that. All of the proceeding is a contrived example, not in line with any particular RPG that i'm familiar with. The point in a narrativist RPG is to give the players mechanics to influence the course of the story directly, as opposed to influencing the actions within the gameworld, which might then influence the course of the story. It's not that the GM needs more control. Rather, the ability to control those elements has very deliberately been wrested from the GM's sole control and distributed amongst the players. IOW, as several have been saying here, and in direct contradiction to Ryan (and others), playing a rules-lite game generally gives the players more, not less, power relative to the GM.

That is a very crude example--most narrativist games are much more sophisticated in their mechanics. BUt the significant paradigm shift is deciding things based on how the players want the story to go, rather than on what is "realistic". But not "deciding" as in "i want X, so X happens"--any more than you get to simply decide your D&D character kills the orc with one mighty blow. Rather, those are the elements upon which teh mechanics are staked. So you might have to bid, or roll, or whatever, to gain the authority to decide the scene. Similarly, in a lot of narrativist games, whether or not to roll (i.e., invoke the mechanics) is decided not based on difficulty, but based on narrative significance. In D&D3E, you technically need to roll any time there is a chance of failure [and you can't skip it by taking 10 or 20]. Whether it actually matters or not is irrelevant. [Though, of course, most groups won't bother rolling unless it matters--just as teh uninteresting parts of the character's life are skipped over.] In a narrativist game, you only roll when it matters--regardless of the difficulty.

Let me bring in a specific example at this point: in Dust Devils, when you want to resolve a conflict the involved parties draw and play some cards. The player with the best poker hand succeeds at whatever she was attempting, while those in conflict with her fail. But the player with the highest card [frequently one of the losers] gets to actually narrate how that success comes about--and what happens to the other characters. So, rather than the GM interpreting the results of the mechanics and weaving a narrative, the players do so.

Now, there's no reason you can't have crunchy narrativist play. There's no reason you can't have mixed narrativist/simulationist games. But there is a reason why rules-lite and simulationist/gamist tend not to work well together [to be clear: rules-lite simulationist isn't ap roblem; rules-lite gamist isn't a problem; it's putting them all together that is the problem]. So, the rules-lite games that people rave about tend not to be simulationist/gamist, and, more specifically, tend to be narrativist.

 

[woodelf]

FWIW, in most computer game reviews--especially reviews of role-playing games--replayability is thought of as a bonus. It's considered a virtue of Baldur's Gate II, for instance, that you can play through as a paladin and then go back and play through as an evil wizard and have a different experience while mastering a different set of abilities. The same thing is true of Diablo II. One of its virtues was that you could play through the game with different classes and have a different experience each time. Heck, the expansion added only about 25% as much area as the original game but added 40% of the classes in the original game. So, I'd say there's pretty solid evidence that the gaming community in general (if not the p&p gaming community) does consider increasing complexity a good thing in role-playing games.

Big difference that makes me question the validity of this analogy: without variety from different characters, the only reason to replay a computer game would be branches within the decision tree. So, while some may like the increasing complexity of multiple character types, it would be just as easy to conclude from that data that they like the increasing options. An RPG doesn't require those options just to get replayability, because you've got a live GM who can change everything else to make things interesting. IOW, replayability in computer games is a matter of bang-for-your-buck: giving you more playtime for your $50 (and one way to do that is to make it fun to play the entire game a second time, and one way to do *that* is to make the experience vary depending on the character you pick).

 

[woodelf]

We spent so many pages talking about things from the perspective of, okay, granted these unstated assumptions like the GM having creative control over everything outside of the PC's skin, and an adversarial GM-Player relationship, and a heavy focus on specific, physical activities rather than bigger issues... how do the rules tell us how to jump over a pit?

Well, there's a reason that the discussion style on r.g.f.advocacy and The Forge is significantly different from that around here--and why these sorts of discussions are less-frequently productive here. [That being that a much higher level of shared assumptions is presumed in more-topically-focused community like EnWorld.]

Maybe the conceptual gulf is too wide. I have trouble seeing the other side -- I can't imagine playing in a game where the GM provides 90% of the creative input, or with a group that consistently argues about minor task resolution issues. I just don't get it. But it's a different playstyle, and if someone wants to play that way, then go for it. Use a rules system that supports it by guaranteeing the players tactical input and can arbitrate disuptes.

Actually, i like that playstyle, too. I'm not skilled enough in the right ways to run such a thing, but i would *love* to play a game of HackMaster by the book--tactical, nit-picking, player-GM adversarial, the whole nine yards. I think it'd be a blast, if i could ever find a GM capable of running such a game smoothly.

But I'm still kind of lost as to why so many people assumed that a rules-light system must be bad or insufficient because it did different things than they expected. If we're advocating a system, it must do something that we want it to do!

In fairness, the rules-lite advocates are at least as much at fault in this conversation as the detractors. One of us should've jumped in at the first mention of "but it doesn't have enough tactical detail" to 'splain that we're talking past each other--that they have different playstyle goals. After all, we're the ones familiar with both types of games.

 

[woodelf]

Would Torg qualify? I never played it, but I think the card system let players force the GM into all kinds of rules and plots.

Yes, and no. It qualifies in the sense that it had some player authorial input. However, it is, overall, a fairly crunchy system, and the cards mostly worked within that system, rather than controvening it, so it is neither "rules-lite", nor does it give particularly much of the power to the players. The exception is the "subplot" cards, which were a small subset of the cards and, IIRC, were more like a cue from the player that they wanted that sort of thing to happen, than authorial control to make it happen.

A better example would be something like ... well, the Contacts system in Unearthed Arcana is a weak example. If you eliminated the rule that you can't pick someone major/significant in teh setting, and allow the player to define the nature of the relationship (including hostile), it would be roughly the sort of thing i'm talking about. So you'd have a system where, at any time, the player could (1) bring in an NPC or (2) define the relationship between their PC and an existing NPC [provided the relationship hadn't already been defined, of course]. That's the sort of thing i'm talking about. Is that example helpful?

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Yes, and no. It qualifies in the sense that it had some player authorial input. However, it is, overall, a fairly crunchy system, and the cards mostly worked within that system, rather than controvening it, so it is neither "rules-lite", nor does it give particularly much of the power to the players. The exception is the "subplot" cards, which were a small subset of the cards and, IIRC, were more like a cue from the player that they wanted that sort of thing to happen, than authorial control to make it happen.

A better example would be something like ... well, the Contacts system in Unearthed Arcana is a weak example. If you eliminated the rule that you can't pick someone major/significant in teh setting, and allow the player to define the nature of the relationship (including hostile), it would be roughly the sort of thing i'm talking about. So you'd have a system where, at any time, the player could (1) bring in an NPC or (2) define the relationship between their PC and an existing NPC [provided the relationship hadn't already been defined, of course]. That's the sort of thing i'm talking about. Is that example helpful?

I get the impression that several HERO system disadvantages (and a few perks) qualify for what you're talking about, which would seem to indicate that it's not necessarily new, nor is it tied invariably to rules-liteness.

For example, with the Hunted disadvantage, the player rather than the GM decides who or what is hunting his character, why, how powerful (relatively) the hunter is, whether they have non-combat influence, and what they want to do to him if they catch him.

Players can also define a great deal about their Dependent NPCs (another disadvantage) - how effective they are (within the limit of their not being more helpful than hindering), how much they know about the character's activities, and how often they participate in the campaign.

On the positive side, players can take Contacts and define those contacts much like they would a Hunted hunter.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

I get the impression that several HERO system disadvantages (and a few perks) qualify for what you're talking about, which would seem to indicate that it's not necessarily new, nor is it tied invariably to rules-liteness.

I think that is true. There are multiple systems through which you could pursue relationship-based play. It's more a matter of focus, as systems that focus just on these issues are often going to be less complex.

For example, and this is kind of a stretch, let's say we were playing a HERO System game of "24". The only things on your sheet were "relationships" (Hunteds, DNPCs, Contacts) and Psychological Limitations. (Let's stretch it a bit and say that frequency and points invested in a relationship determine their importance per scene instead of per session.)

The character sheet might read: Jack Bauer, Contact:CTU 14-, Hunted:Terrorists 11-, DNPC: Kim Bauer, daughter and subordinate, 11-.

Let's say scenes are resolved through a combination of "just roleplaying" and rolling the frequency for the relationships that were involved in the current scene. So I'm playing out a scene like the TV show 24 where I'm a CIA agent supported by other agents, staking out a terrorist rendevous in a shopping mall. Kim's posing as the terrorist's contact, because she was the only person on site that looked similar enough. (Yeah, this is from the actual show.)

We make our rolls, the player rolling the advantages and the GM rolling disads. Contact fails, Hunted and DNPC "succeed".

So maybe the scene involves the head agent on site having a grudge against Jack, because he put away the guy's former partner for taking bribes. Because the guy's being difficult, Kim, who's posing as the contact, doesn't have covering support at a crucial moment and gets kidnapped.

Now you could play like that, and the entire scene is resolved in those rolls, or you could now break it down into additional detail, using the HERO combat rules to figure out movement and gunfire. Either is valid. But if you're using just the "relationship" rules, then the game is heavily focused on the relationships involved, and necessarily more "rules-light" than if you used the entire HERO rules.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Now you could play like that, and the entire scene is resolved in those rolls, or you could now break it down into additional detail, using the HERO combat rules to figure out movement and gunfire. Either is valid. But if you're using just the "relationship" rules, then the game is heavily focused on the relationships involved, and necessarily more "rules-light" than if you used the entire HERO rules.

I think this is where the "completist" in me comes into play. I want there to be rules for what happens when the gun fight breaks out. I can't rely on someone else's interpretation of what happens to my DNPC. I don't want the GM to say "Well, since you were distracted, she didn't get support and dies". I want to know that I didn't actually have the time to get there and save her based on movement rules, and attack rolls and damage.

Because without that, it ceases to be a game and it becomes a circle story. Which I love doing, however, it always ends up with the story being wrestled from person to person as each person wants the story to go their own way.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

I get that. It's just an example for when someone said "But I could do this rules-heavy". It's just to express the possibility that a group who had zero interest in movement rules and attack rolls could still enjoy a game based on "24".

Believe me, I'm done trying to convince anybody that they might want to try different play styles. I'm done trying to explain that there are groups out there who are able to creatively collaborate without fighting for dominance.

 

[woodelf]

I get the impression that several HERO system disadvantages (and a few perks) qualify for what you're talking about, which would seem to indicate that it's not necessarily new, nor is it tied invariably to rules-liteness.

For example, with the Hunted disadvantage, the player rather than the GM decides who or what is hunting his character, why, how powerful (relatively) the hunter is, whether they have non-combat influence, and what they want to do to him if they catch him.

Players can also define a great deal about their Dependent NPCs (another disadvantage) - how effective they are (within the limit of their not being more helpful than hindering), how much they know about the character's activities, and how often they participate in the campaign.

On the positive side, players can take Contacts and define those contacts much like they would a Hunted hunter.

Hero is one game i've noly ever read, never played, so somebody correct me if i'm wrong, but:

IIRC, Hero System ha sthe tools for building these sorts of things into your character, yes, but it doesn't have any tools for playing out these sorts of things, really. That is, it can tell you how often your nemesis shows up--and the player can decide when creating the character what the odds will be--but it doesn't have any mechanism to give the player in-game control (a la "i play a fate point; it turns out my nemesis is behind these robberies" or "<tosses three chits into pot> my nemesis shows up, bolloxing the stakeout just as the drug deal goes down"), or to make it a tactical element. In Hero, you can choose whether or not to use your power, but you can't choose whether or not to use your ally--at least, i don't think you can. Again, IIRC, the best you ca ndo is "activate" the NPC, and then it's up to the GM to take it from there. And i don't think it has in-built mechanisms to let you declare someone an ally in the middle of play. [though, i suppose you could save exp, and allow immediate expenditure in that manner.] So, some of this *is* relatively new, while some of the elements have at least seeds dating back to the early 80s.

Really, Hero system is fairly unusual in this regard, precisely because it *does* have mechanisms for quantifying social aspect,s too--though it still doesn't handle story elements, or authorial control. So, if you want to focus on that, rather than focusing on combat, you can do so. Contrast with D&D3E, where you can't mechanically focus on the social stuff the way you can the combat stuff, without extensive houseruls or 3rd-party add-ons.

All that said, i concur: it is not inherently tied to rules-lite-ness, that's just the way most of these things have gone. The Riddle of Steel and The Burning Wheel both have extensive narrative-interaction systems, and neither is rules-lite by any stretch. It's rather the converse that has some weight: a rules-lite system that is gamist/simulationist is very hard to pull off, so almost no rules-lite systems go that route. So, there are two skews, one of which i suspect is inherent to a degree (rules-lite games favoring narrativism) and one of which i think is just a market trend (crunchy games favoring gamism/simulationism).

 

[SweeneyTodd]

I was just rereading parts of Aaron Allston's Strike Force, which has some GMing advice that's surprisingly good and generally applicable for a superhero supplement written 15 years ago. I bring it up because it's written for Hero.

It talks a bit about how character point expenditures aren't just about characters; they can be a statement a player makes about what they want to focus on. (It's also got a section about Character Premise that reads a lot like narrativism.) So if I have a Dependent NPC, I might not just be looking for points; I might want to explore themes involving relationships.

Most of the advice is still along the old lines of "They've indicated they care about it, so bring it up in play and see if they bite" instead of just advocating that you talk to the player and solicit their ideas, so woodelf's guess is pretty close.