Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ourph" data-source="post: 2393671" data-attributes="member: 20239">See, this is a reasonable statement that makes me think I'm misunderstanding the point, but then you directly contradict yourself a few sentences later by writing....Either rules-lite is more fun for some people or it isn't.  Obviously I'm not trying to argue that the other factors you mention (DM skill, interpersonal relationships among the players, etc.) don't significantly impact the fun level of a game, but you cannot dismiss the amount of rules complexity as a factor in the fun level for some groups simply because one parameter (i.e. - decreasing complexity) doesn't increase fun for all groups.I accept your assertion and analysis that at some point in the history of RPGs, designers made the mistaken assumption that rules-liteness was an automatic guarantor of fun-ness.  That's a bad assumption.  I think it's also a bad assumption to draw the conclusion that because (on average) a study group of RPG players didn't achieve 1) faster chargen times; 2) faster task resolution; 3) less rules conflict; or 4) more fun; with a rules-lite RPG that rules-lite games aren't compatible with those things on an individual group basis.There are certain people within my group of gaming acquaintances with whom I would not play a rules-lite game because their personality is not rules-lite compatible.  Depending on whether those people were sitting at the table, a rules-lite game session would look completely different to an outside observer.  My question  to you Ryan is, did your "research" control for this type of variable?  If not, I don't believe the observations are really all that informative.</blockquote>

Verification