The Stakes of Classifying Games as Rules Lite, Medium, or Heavy?

[Thomas Shey]

I'm not sure how anyone reads the text for a game like Apocalypse World, dogs in the Vineyard, Sorcerer, or Monsterhearts and comes across with the belief that group dynamics should function anything like they do in a D&D game. That's a big part of why they are written in such provocative language. To get that point across. They pretty much already come with a Surgeon General's warning.

They do, but I'm not sure all the PbtA games I've looked at have actually discussed what that's going to potentially mean at the table (obviously, I haven't read all of them or even a majority).

I think a fair point could be made for some games that straddle the line like Exalted Third Edition ,Legend of the Five Rings Fifth Edition and to a lesser extent FFG Star Wars which lure you in with action adventure premises and hit you with a bunch of indie style social mechanics some players might not be expecting. These are some of my favorite games, but they should probably have some more upfront warnings.

And that's more what I'm talking about. You can end up with a game that looks about 95% like most other trad games, and have that 5% have things that can be unexpected rocks and that aren't emphasized (I'm thinking of the Storypath games here).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I mean, I think artists have a moral duty to do more than shovel out comforting cliches. Aesthetic variety has value. There's also the old chicken-and-egg problem of not knowing what 'taste' really means in a monoculture.

In any case, I think your statement is premised on the assumption that a common group dynamic actually exists. I don't think it does, as a single coherent style of play. Everyone is 'playing D&D', but then you dig a little, and find that all these different groups are effectively running different systems.

Exactly. Its like this debate about what the initiative rules are in 2e. I guarantee you there isn't a 'right' and a 'wrong' side, and that's just a technical rules interpretation issue. I will bet a dollar that people who played 1e and then used 2e as basically 'supplements' that updated stuff typically played a lot differently from people who picked up 2e in the mid-90's and never played Gygax-style D&D. Every TABLE had a different opinion of what the rules were back then. I can say with great assurance that we ignored whole swaths of 2e as 'nonsense' and used a lot of 1e procedures and such. Heck, it was only a few years ago in one of these threads that I went back and discovered that in fact 2e HAS NO EXPLORATION RULES AT ALL. My assumption was they were pretty much the same as the 1e ones. Back in the day I don't think we even realized it, the process was X and it wasn't even really a 'rules' thing to us back then, it was just 'how its done'. But if you picked up the 2e books and started playing, aside from a few stray references to turns, there was nothing in there about exploration movement, etc.

 

[Cadence]

Yeah, I just don't remember doing anything at all with weapon speed factors unless there was a tie, etc. I'll have to go dig out the original version of the 2e PHB, because the text on the CD version of the 2nd 'printing' (should really be called a 2nd edition of 2e, it is very different in some details) doesn't match with the way we ever played it. Anyway, the problem is there are a lot of exceptions to that anyway, and several variations. For example pretty much every missile weapon fires more than once, and thus gets to fire at different times (and missile fire in any case has its own period of resolution). Same with multi-attacks, which are quite common in 2e, unlike 1e where they were rare aside from higher level fighters and such.

I was surprised how much space it takes up. In the printed PhB, initiative starts in the bottom few inches of a column on page 93 and goes into the second column of page 96. The "Standard Inititative" is the first two full paragraphs on page 94 - each side rolls d10, low side goes, tie is simultaneous. There is then a column worth of standard modifiers, a quarter page of optional modifiers, a blue box optional group initiative, a column long example, a blue box individual initiative, a half column of multiple attacks and initiative, a third column of spellcasting and initiative, and then the very last blue box on page 96 at the end of the section is a column worth of optional rules on weapons speed.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not sure how anyone reads the text for a game like Apocalypse World, dogs in the Vineyard, Sorcerer, or Monsterhearts and comes across with the belief that group dynamics should function anything like they do in a D&D game. That's a big part of why they are written in such provocative language. To get that point across. They pretty much already come with a Surgeon General's warning.

I think a fair point could be made for some games that straddle the line like Exalted Third Edition ,Legend of the Five Rings Fifth Edition and to a lesser extent FFG Star Wars which lure you in with action adventure premises and hit you with a bunch of indie style social mechanics some players might not be expecting. These are some of my favorite games, but they should probably have some more upfront warnings.

Honestly, I think it may make sense from a business standpoint for a company to make sure they convey what the target audience of a product is, but for the most part 99.8427% of all people who sit down at a table to participate in an RPG don't know the term 'indie game' from Relativistic Quantum Field Theory. Most people also tend to play 'the game they want to play' and not the game that the designer designed, and thus if they aren't really interested in some meta-game mechanic or some subsystem or whatever, it just never actually comes into play.

Now, I agree that wouldn't fly with really hard core story games, PbtAs and such mostly just won't work unless you at least engage with some of their core assumptions and practices. However, I suspect that the vast majority of people who suddenly end up confronted with these games didn't buy them and read the rules, they got invited to play. Dungeon World for instance is pretty up front about what it is, but if some random person drops in to play an RPG with me, they may well have no idea what they're getting into if that's the game we're playing. They'll just have to try it and see if they like it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I was surprised how much space it takes up. In the printed PhB, initiative starts in the bottom few inches of a column on page 93 and goes into the second column of page 96. The "Standard Inititative" is the first two full paragraphs on page 94 - each side rolls d10, low side goes, tie is simultaneous. There is then a column worth of standard modifiers, a quarter page of optional modifiers, a blue box optional group initiative, a column long example, a blue box individual initiative, a half column of multiple attacks and initiative, a third column of spellcasting and initiative, and then the very last blue box on page 96 at the end of the section is a column worth of optional rules on weapons speed.

Yeah, and the 2e version is at least FAIRLY CLEAR, nothing about how attacks are timed is at all clear in the, frankly horrible, 1e combat write up. I always suspected it was kind of INTENDED to work much like the 2e version does, but I don't think Gary was really systematic enough to articulate it clearly (and some stuff like weapon speed factors seems either tacked-on at the last minute or else partially excised because it didn't work quite right).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I also disagree that designers should feel compelled to meet existing expectations when following up on a previous property particularly if they are interested in serving other audiences. I count among my very favorite game Vampire The Requiem Second Edition, Exalted Third Edition, Legend of the Five Rings Fifth Edition, and Pathfinder Second Edition. All represent major breaks from previous iterations. All are phenomenally better games for it. On a creative level their design quality is way better than their forbearers.

"Compelled" no; but aware that people are going to go in with expectations and make it clear that things have changed, sometimes in fundamental ways. That's not going to make everyone happy anyway, but at least you can say you're not selling a pig in a poke then.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Honestly, I think it may make sense from a business standpoint for a company to make sure they convey what the target audience of a product is, but for the most part 99.8427% of all people who sit down at a table to participate in an RPG don't know the term 'indie game' from Relativistic Quantum Field Theory. Most people also tend to play 'the game they want to play' and not the game that the designer designed, and thus if they aren't really interested in some meta-game mechanic or some subsystem or whatever, it just never actually comes into play.

I don't think that's true, or I wouldn't have the reaction I do.

Instead what happens in most cases is that people (as you say) try to play the game like they used to, try to use the rules present for it, and get some serious dissonance because the rules makes assumptions about play they aren't engaging in.

At that point they may well discard or modify the parts that are producing the dissonance, or just give up on the game, but either way you had a game that produced a bad experience because the game expectations were out of sync with what the group expected.

(Sometimes this isn't a game designer problem; sometimes its a GM who just decides blithely that he can introduce a whole new play paradigm to his group without assessing whether its going to go over like a lead balloon. Still a failure of communication, but at a different level).

Now, I agree that wouldn't fly with really hard core story games, PbtAs and such mostly just won't work unless you at least engage with some of their core assumptions and practices. However, I suspect that the vast majority of people who suddenly end up confronted with these games didn't buy them and read the rules, they got invited to play. Dungeon World for instance is pretty up front about what it is, but if some random person drops in to play an RPG with me, they may well have no idea what they're getting into if that's the game we're playing. They'll just have to try it and see if they like it.

I think this is overly optimistic. People buy games all the time without understanding what the rules are going to be like, simply because of blurbs (which may emphasize the setting/genre more than the rules, and even when they do, may assume people are already familiar with what a "Powered by the Apocalypse" means in that context.).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't think that's true, or I wouldn't have the reaction I do.

Instead what happens in most cases is that people (as you say) try to play the game like they used to, try to use the rules present for it, and get some serious dissonance because the rules makes assumptions about play they aren't engaging in.

At that point they may well discard or modify the parts that are producing the dissonance, or just give up on the game, but either way you had a game that produced a bad experience because the game expectations were out of sync with what the group expected.

(Sometimes this isn't a game designer problem; sometimes its a GM who just decides blithely that he can introduce a whole new play paradigm to his group without assessing whether its going to go over like a lead balloon. Still a failure of communication, but at a different level).



I think this is overly optimistic. People buy games all the time without understanding what the rules are going to be like, simply because of blurbs (which may emphasize the setting/genre more than the rules, and even when they do, may assume people are already familiar with what a "Powered by the Apocalypse" means in that context.).

So, what are you saying? That games should only be designed with certain expectations in mind, and other variations are 'poor design' because your perceived notions of what the market is don't jibe with that? I don't think you're saying that. However, if I'm writing PbtA games, why should it be MY task to warn you away from my game? It seems very elitist for one segment of the hobby to claim to be the assumed standard by which all others would be judged to the point where anything else has to carry a disclaimer! I DO think educating your customers can be a good idea, but I think writing an intro to your game that explains the sort of play it aims at should be sufficient.

I mean, lest this seem like merely a quibble, I present to you the the evidence of sheer dismissiveness and arrogance, such as this from another current thread Post from 'Too Much Prose in RPGs'

 

[Thomas Shey]

So, what are you saying? That games should only be designed with certain expectations in mind, and other variations are 'poor design' because your perceived notions of what the market is don't jibe with that?

As I've said repeatedly, they should be written so that the users are prepared for the things that are liable to work poorly with a lot of people. That isn't saying not to do them--there can be good reasons or bad reasons to do them, and my feelings about what those are is complicated and varies from case to case--but they should be at least aware of them, and show that in presentation.

I don't think you're saying that. However, if I'm writing PbtA games, why should it be MY task to warn you away from my game?

Why should it be someone who makes a power tool's task to warn users of its risk? Because you're paying them money to get it and time to use it.

It seems very elitist for one segment of the hobby to claim to be the assumed standard by which all others would be judged to the point where anything else has to carry a disclaimer! I DO think educating your customers can be a good idea, but I think writing an intro to your game that explains the sort of play it aims at should be sufficient.

I'm not talking about whether a game is similar to other games; I'm talking about whether a game assumes social and dynamic cohesion that is not self-evidently common. Trad games can mess this up just as much as indy games (in fact, I'd argue the history of the evolution of some of them have been figuring out the areas where this has happened in a number of cases). Note my comments about the D&D 3e designers assuming people would be playing it like they did 2e, when it encouraged different play styles. That's just as much a in approach.

I mean, lest this seem like merely a quibble, I present to you the the evidence of sheer dismissiveness and arrogance, such as this from another current thread Post from 'Too Much Prose in RPGs'

I'm not sure how it relates, but okay.

Oh, wait, I suspect your link makes no sense because its in reference to a poster who has me on ignore.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As I've said repeatedly, they should be written so that the users are prepared for the things that are liable to work poorly with a lot of people. That isn't saying not to do them--there can be good reasons or bad reasons to do them, and my feelings about what those are is complicated and varies from case to case--but they should be at least aware of them, and show that in presentation.

OK, but if that's an obligation of RPG designers, then it is one that ALL OF THEM should be held to. I won't accept a judgment that one set of people's ideas of how to play are privileged and can simply be assumed, that's all.

Why should it be someone who makes a power tool's task to warn users of its risk? Because you're paying them money to get it and time to use it.

Again, I have no problem with the idea that it is a good idea to educate your audience. I'm just trying to understand if you really mean to say that you consider games that you would want to play to be somehow privileged.

I'm not talking about whether a game is similar to other games; I'm talking about whether a game assumes social and dynamic cohesion that is not self-evidently common. Trad games can mess this up just as much as indy games (in fact, I'd argue the history of the evolution of some of them have been figuring out the areas where this has happened in a number of cases). Note my comments about the D&D 3e designers assuming people would be playing it like they did 2e, when it encouraged different play styles. That's just as much a in approach.

OK, I interpret that mean "Yes, all games should do this, not just ones I don't consider mainstream." Sorry if this seems like a nitpick, but fans of certain RPGs often don't seem to see how they appear to project an attitude that seems to make all other forms of RPG 2nd class.

I'm not sure how it relates, but okay.+

It relates to my concern very much, because it PERFECTLY illustrates the absolute arrogance associated with a large segment of RPG fandom which seems to consider itself the absolute arbiter of what is acceptable, mainstream, etc. That poster simply dismissed not even a genre or classification of RPGs, but essentially everything not produced by those he seems to favor as irrelevant trash with a metaphorical wave of the hand.