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

[TheAlkaizer]

Why does this classification matter for some people? What is gained through classifying games along this spectrum?

I think it's one of these things that's useful for understanding a product before you had the chance to play with it.

Just like someone can go on a board and ask does anyone know a game that explores this genre someone can go and say I'm not into rule-heavy games, anyone has something a bit lighter. It's a characteristic of games. There's an equivalent with board games. Almost every time someone whips out a board game around me, someone will ask but how long does it take to setup the game and learn it. Or if someone suggest a longer game someone will say no, one session lasts way too long, I want something shorter.

In video games we'll talk about genre, platform, number of players, challenge level, setting, etc. In shows we'll look into the length of episodes, the number of seasons, the themes explored, number of characters, the setting, the genre, etc.

As to crunch specifically, it's a useful characteristic to me. I've spent the last two years toying with Starfinder, with I consider quite crunchy. I've got about a dozen TTRPG ready to try and my colleagues asked to try Pathfinder 2E and I said "No sorry, I'm looking to run something lighter for a few months". It takes time to learn to play a crunchy game, to me there's definitely a correlation between the crunch level and the accessibility of the game. It demands more from me, it demands more from my players.

 

[Aldarc]

In fact, the original comment already demonstrates a subjective bias in suggesting rules-light is positive and rules-heavy is negative. Rules-Light does not mean "better." Sometimes it means "poorly defined," "filled with gaps," and "lacking substance." It's just a descriptor like "gritty" or "grimdark" or "heroic." Whether these words are positive or negative depend on the player.

I'm not sure if my original comment demonstrates a subjective bias so much as it does an awareness that such a bias may be present in such discussions, hence the thread about the stakes of such classification.

 

[Cadence]

In terms of 5e, is the Essentials box (or similar starter box) rules heavy or rules light?

Does expandability equate to rules heavy? Is the primary issue what is needed to get someone started, or what is needed to run it long term?

 

[Umbran]

Instead, my interest rests in the fundamental stakes of this system of classification from rules lite to rules heavy commonly found in our hobby.

"Stakes" are what you might lose in a risky situation. The only real stakes are ending up with a misapprehension of what a game is like in practice. There are some perceived and social stakes in discussions, but those aren't actually about the classification.

Why does this classification matter for some people?

So, on the internet, there's a social phenomenon - once you've (generic, not you, Aldarc) said a thing, there's a perception of loss of face if you then admit that you were wrong. Many internet discussions are driven not by how important the issue actually is, but instead by how much people cannot admit being wrong, or allow someone else to have the last word.

What is gained through classifying games along this spectrum? What is at stake if D&D 5e, for example, gets classified as Rules Heavy rather than Rules Medium? Are there incentives for games to be perceived and classified as lighter than they accurately are?

There's a tendency for people to want some... "ownership" for lack of a better term. I like Game X. I like Y aspect. Therefore I want X classified as Y. Classifying it as Z instead to me has some cognitive dissonance, because I'm not a fan of Z, so I push back because of my own identification.

 

[Aldarc]

"Stakes" are what you might lose in a risky situation. The only real stakes are ending up with a misapprehension of what a game is like in practice. There are some perceived and social stakes in discussions, but those aren't actually about the classification.

"Stakes" is self-admittedly not the most appropriate word for this sort of discussion, as it's more a case of discussing why classifying game A as lite, medium, or heavy can be so contentious and matters for some. (You add good points for consideration to that matter in the rest of your post.)

 

[Umbran]

"Stakes" is self-admittedly not the most appropriate word for this sort of discussion, as it's more a case of discussing why classifying game A as lite, medium, or heavy can be so contentious and matters for some. (You add good points for consideration to that matter in the rest of your post.)

Sure. I actually found it a good framework, though, because it was a natural way to introduce the social stakes of conversations on the internet.

 

[Malmuria]

For me, it comes down to how easy it is to teach and run a system. I often play with players who are new to ttrpgs, and so rules lite systems are helpful because they are easy to learn. Further, a game with a lot of rules can be difficult to run. I would be on board with a rules heavy game if the entire table was committed to learning and understanding the rules.

 

[aramis erak]

"Stakes" are what you might lose in a risky situation. The only real stakes are ending up with a misapprehension of what a game is like in practice.

That is, however, a pretty severe stake from an authorial and publishing view.

And what makes something rules-heavy isn't a well agreed upon term... but it's a consistently reported term in reviews. So, the stakes already exist, and aren't trivial.

 

[Yora]

What is at stake if D&D 5e, for example, gets classified as Rules Heavy rather than Rules Medium?

 

[Umbran]

That is, however, a pretty severe stake from an authorial and publishing view.

I don't think there's evidence that EN World discussion of classifying the weight of rules really has an impact on game sales. We aren't thought leaders influencing the market.

In addition, the OP is asking why people in the discussion care. Generally, the authors and publishers don't come here and get in the discussion. If one of them did, yes, they may feel they have a stake, but their assessment is then going to be largely profit-driven, which is perhaps not the best basis for classification.