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

[Thomas Shey]

I think we are all better off that if a group wants to play Vampire it now gets to choose between Masquerade 20th Anniversary Edition, Requiem Second Edition, and Masquerade Fifth Edition. Having 3 valid entry points that provide different play experiences is a net good for our greater community. I think it's great that different groups play Exalted Second Edition, Exalted Third Edition, and Exalted Essence. Having overall more choice in the hobby is a good thing.

I am not personally a fan of Exalted Essence, but I am glad it exists for the people who want it.

I think the industry is at it's best when creative people are allowed to be creative.

Just to make my position clear, I am not suggesting people not innovate; I'm simply suggesting they consider their potential audience in how they present that innovation.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Privileged, no. But assumed? Sorry, can't follow you there. Some things I think in general can be assumed as a default. Among other things, some of them have harmless failure states and some don't. If you assume a gaming group is prone to some disharmony and a group isn't, at worst you have some backstops that aren't necessary and can be ignored, but little harm will be done. If the opposite is true you're likely to produce a genuinely unpleasant experience. Similar things apply in other areas.

I think you're reaching a bit, personally. Someone suggests a game, people decide to play that game, maybe they do or do not like it, and I see very little to no evidence that the likelihood of that is different based on fairly fuzzy categories like 'story game' or whatnot. Nor do I think that there's some 'danger' there. Eh, maybe some specific grouping of people that came together for game X and didn't like it so much go their separate ways, sure. Its EQUALLY LIKELY that some group of people that might otherwise not have gathered at all will be attracted to game X. Nobody can say one kind of game does this better than other.

What in the world makes you assume I'm using myself as the standard here? I like and have problems with things that are by no means apparently typical.

Perhaps.

It isn't a mainstream/non-mainstream issue per se, at least. Unless your concept of mainstream is very narrow.

And the typical opinion of what is mainstream in these threads is not generally quite narrow?

If its who I assume it is, he tends to do this with everything that doesn't fit his own tastes. My calling him on it is probably what got me ignored (it had to be at his end since I have a grand total of two people ignored).

lol, yeah, I'm not surprised . I just feel like I run into a LOT of 'motivated reasoning' around here, and a lot of it comes in a form very similar to "well, I like X, and its a popular game (5e basically these days) thus it literally MUST be the best/represent the mainstream/be what most people objectively prefer, and I am going to construct some (however dubious and unsupported) 'logic' to assert that it must be taken to be the right/proper/dominant form of RPG play." In fact it is close to an all-pervasive theme in most discussions. I don't think people actually realize how incredibly prevalent and just how dubious it all is. The poster we're referring to is simply an extreme example, really even beyond that level.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

To clarify, I'm also less talking about play styles than I am about group dynamics. They aren't entirely unrelated, but they don't have a one to one correspondence (some playstyles are impractical for some group dynamics, but the playstyle isn't the issue per se).

I can give an example if I'm being overly muddy here.

Fire away. I probably get what you're saying, but I try not to make too many assumptions there, as I am pretty thick-headed.

 

[Cadence]

lol, yeah, I'm not surprised . I just feel like I run into a LOT of 'motivated reasoning' around here, and a lot of it comes in a form very similar to "well, I like X, and its a popular game (5e basically these days) thus it literally MUST be the best/represent the mainstream/be what most people objectively prefer, and I am going to construct some (however dubious and unsupported) 'logic' to assert that it must be taken to be the right/proper/dominant form of RPG play." In fact it is close to an all-pervasive theme in most discussions. I don't think people actually realize how incredibly prevalent and just how dubious it all is. The poster we're referring to is simply an extreme example, really even beyond that level.

Just got out of an 1h45 zoom and am feeling grumpy and pedantic warning:

I'm going along agreeing, and wanting to hit like. And then I'm caught by the same thing as before. It reads like you're saying that 5e isn't the singularly most popular by a lot game out there, and definitionally the mainstream or dominant (which says nothing about best, or what they'd like if they'd try more, or right or proper). Do I have the popularity numbers wrong?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Just got out of an 1h45 zoom and am feeling grumpy and pedantic warning:

I'm going along agreeing, and wanting to hit like. And then I'm caught by the same thing as before. It reads like you're saying that 5e isn't the singularly most popular by a lot game out there, and definitionally the mainstream or dominant (which says nothing about best, or what they'd like if they'd try more, or right or proper). Do I have the popularity numbers wrong?

Oh, I doubt it isn't the single most likely game out there to run into. Its just that this doesn't automatically translate into the MOST PREFERRED, and certainly not "the game most people would enjoy the most if we could measure average enjoyment of play." I mean, maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but its like saying that because more people happen to play Monopoly than any other board game that we should consider it to be the most 'mainstream' and 'dominant' game. By what measure?

I don't even have that much issue with the idea that 5e is the most 'mainstream' RPG, but then I DO definitely bristle at the motivated reasoning that follows from that, which ALWAYS ends with something close to "and we should assume that game <X> which you favor is basically weird and largely irrelevant and should be dismissed out of hand." I got tired of that song and dance a LONG time ago!

 

[Campbell]

5e defines the mainstream full stop. Some posters used to get mad at me for calling it mainstream.

I do get very annoyed with all the virtue signaling around popularity used to put other games, playstyles, and entire posters in a box where they are treated as basically irrelevant. Basically if you exist on the margins of our overall play culture it feels like you must constantly demure and subjugate yourself before the dominant culture. Basically apologize for your games, your tastes, your perspective, etc. Have your views, experiences, and viewpoint be treated as less valuable on an individual basis. It feels very patronizing.

The biggest case and point for this is all the special pleading around the flexibility of mainstream games. If you prefer less popular games well they must be these narrow bespoke experiences. Not just different ones.

I don't particularly like being put in a box like that. The call to basically have warning labels for games that clearly have things like binding social mechanics feels very much like asking us to apologize for existing.

 

[pemerton]

No. The fact they don't create physical risk does not mean they don't pose risks. They can absolutely be disruptive to a given groups harmony if they don't realize what they're getting into. That shouldn't even be controversial.

D&D can be disruptive too. When I was a club RPGer I joined two D&D campaigns with complete strangers as GMs. One busted after two or three weeks because the GM was a terrible railroader - and so we started our own RM group. We invited the GM to join us, but he declined.

It's a long time since I've introduced a friend to RPGing, but the last time I did he absolutely took it for granted that players would play a role in establish backstory, PC goals and context, etc. The idea that all that would be the GM's domain was foreign to him.

That's why I agree with @AbdulAlhazred - a group tries a game and they like it or they don't. I mean, imagine a group of friends who like playing (say) Uno together. And then one of them discovers this great card game called bridge, and teaches the rest of them. And now the group is forced to confront who is a good technical card player, and who is not in a way that never came up with Uno. Does that mean that bridge needs to come with a warning?

If anyone is really unsure about what they're getting into, they can always Google it.

The call to basically have warning labels for games that clearly have things like binding social mechanics feels very much like asking us to apologize for existing.

And AW doesn't even have such things vis-a-vis PCs, only carrot/stick "incentivisers".

I'd phrase it more as "If your players are really used to a strong line of distinction between in-character and out-of-character actions, and expect the latter to be GM actions, you may run into some problems here." I realize its common to assume this is just an authoritarian GM thing, but I've hit a number of people who really do actively dislike doing so.

This doesn't apply just to PbtA, either.

It doesn't apply to PbtA either, at least as a blanket category. AW draws a super-sharp line between in-character and out-of-character actions. The rulebook discusses it in detail, and cautions against introducing custom moves that carelessly blur the distinction.

 

[Aldarc]

5e defines the mainstream full stop. Some posters used to get mad at me for calling it mainstream.

I do get very annoyed with all the virtue signaling around popularity used to put other games, playstyles, and entire posters in a box where they are treated as basically irrelevant. Basically if you exist on the margins of our overall play culture it feels like you must constantly demure and subjugate yourself before the dominant culture. Basically apologize for your games, your tastes, your perspective, etc. Have your views, experiences, and viewpoint be treated as less valuable on an individual basis. It feels very patronizing.

The biggest case and point for this is all the special pleading around the flexibility of mainstream games. If you prefer less popular games well they must be these narrow bespoke experiences. Not just different ones.

I don't particularly like being put in a box like that. The call to basically have warning labels for games that clearly have things like binding social mechanics feels very much like asking us to apologize for existing.

Let the forum records show that Campbell still hasn't apologized for existing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think you're reaching a bit, personally. Someone suggests a game, people decide to play that game, maybe they do or do not like it, and I see very little to no evidence that the likelihood of that is different based on fairly fuzzy categories like 'story game' or whatnot. Nor do I think that there's some 'danger' there. Eh, maybe some specific grouping of people that came together for game X and didn't like it so much go their separate ways, sure. Its EQUALLY LIKELY that some group of people that might otherwise not have gathered at all will be attracted to game X. Nobody can say one kind of game does this better than other.

I absolutely think some types of games are set up to engage with potential group problems of specific sorts than others (and note this can be different games for different issues). If you don't, well, then we're pretty much at an impasse here.

Perhaps.

You can take my opinion on that in good faith or not, but I have every reason to believe its true.

And the typical opinion of what is mainstream in these threads is not generally quite narrow?

I'm not the typical D&D-centric poster on this board. Honestly, the only reason I'm here is the board culture suits me better than the other options I've found (and the other one that suited me, well, apparently I didn't suit them). So to read into what I'm saying that I'm using 5e as the standard is kind of projecting here. I may have a trad-centric view to some extent, but I've not lived in a cave for the last 20 years, either, and I'm usually capable of seeing needs that games that don't work for me personally serve. Similarly I can see where games don't seem to serve the group dynamics of most apparent groups out the gate, and others where its a coin flip but at the least there's a significant number they don't.

You're not required to agree with my assessment, but I'd at least appreciate assuming I come by it honestly and am not just trying to favor what I like or that I'm oblivious to the virtues new designs bring to the table.

lol, yeah, I'm not surprised . I just feel like I run into a LOT of 'motivated reasoning' around here, and a lot of it comes in a form very similar to "well, I like X, and its a popular game (5e basically these days) thus it literally MUST be the best/represent the mainstream/be what most people objectively prefer, and I am going to construct some (however dubious and unsupported) 'logic' to assert that it must be taken to be the right/proper/dominant form of RPG play." In fact it is close to an all-pervasive theme in most discussions. I don't think people actually realize how incredibly prevalent and just how dubious it all is. The poster we're referring to is simply an extreme example, really even beyond that level.

That's fair. But again, I make an attempt to understand what the general tendencies in gaming preferences and problems are specifically because some of them don't apply to me. The success of D&D 5e is pretty much the poster child for that, since it isn't appreciably better suited to my tastes than D&D 4e was (in some respects 3e was closer than either--which is probably why I'm finding PF2e acceptable--but it was also a massive train wreck).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Fire away. I probably get what you're saying, but I try not to make too many assumptions there, as I am pretty thick-headed.

Okay. I was a backer of Scion 2e (because I loved the concept of 1e, but it had problems on its problems), but when the Storypath version came out, it had a couple of big problems from my POV. One of them doesn't related to this in general, because its its at least partly, probably mostly a taste issue.

But then there's Momentum.

Now, to be fair to them, they do somewhat recognize the problem I'm about to discuss, since they present an alternate version of it that doesn't have it. But its one of those sort of tucked-in-the-optional rules things that people do when playtesters have told them something is a problem but they really don't believe them. It should be emphasized right out the gate when Momentum is brought up, because its potential problem with a lot of groups, and a really serious one for some.

The issue is that Momentum is a group resource (as I recall, if you're not familiar with Storypath, I think if I'm not being confused, the Modiphus 2D20 systems usually use something similar--might even use the same name). This has two potential problems that can come up with it, and because of the nature of the problems, will probably in a lot of groups not get talked out until its exceedingly obvious the problem is there.
1. On one hand, some people will tend to use Momentum any time its even vaguely useful because its there and they don't like to fail. The net effect is that other people don't effectively get their share of a resource they've helped to generate. But there's no obvious metric to "how much is too much".
2. At the other end, some people will be overly conservative about using it because they don't want to hog the Momentum, to the point of not using it the way the system expects you to. While some of this can occur even when its not a group resource, its less severe since they're only worried about their own future needs, not the groups.
Its not even going to be particularly uncommon to hit both in the same group, which makes the matter worse.

Now is this going to be a problem with every group? Of course not. But I think its not illegitimate to claim that people mostly experienced with groups with a greater cohesion in how everyone supports everyone else in the group are going to not think of rather large numbers of people who aren't quite as good about this. And some of those people are game designers, and I think they tend to either underestimate how common this sort of thing is, or (and this is far worse) just think its not their problem.

I'm fortunate that I'm with gaming groups that are older and self-aware enough that we looked at this and said "Yeah, that's trouble looking for a place to happen" right out the gate, but not every group is, and I think warning signs are simply good practice for that reason. And this can apply to all kinds of things, some of which I quite like, but have enough evidence to know is a minority view on.