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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SweeneyTodd" data-source="post: 2413543" data-attributes="member: 9391">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.)</blockquote>

Verification