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

[AtomicPope]

TTRPGs are commonly debated about where they lie on a rules crunch spectrum of lite to heavy. For example, is D&D 5e rules medium or rules heavy?

I would put 5e as rules medium, and 3e as rules heavy. Basic D&D or the Starter Set would be rules light.

For purposes of this thread, I'm not actually interested in debating the answers to those questions. Instead, my interest rests in the fundamental stakes of this system of classification from rules lite to rules heavy commonly found in our hobby. Why does this classification matter for some people?

It's a matter of experience. You never see a newb gamer asking "is that a rules light system?" A new gamer in our group who started with 3e and joined our Pathfinder game described 5e as "liberating", saying those other games "bogged down the game with rules." Newer gamers call them "games" and not "systems." Newer gamers don't differentiate systems from games the way older gamers do.

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?

I'd say there's little benefit to those classifications until they're well defined. Right now we only have our experiences, and that loosely translates into table talk. I don't see of a way to market that beyond some meme marketing.

How are we defining it? Where is the grading scale for light, medium, and heavy? What are the criteria?

Some ideas for the grading scale:

• Number of Rules - How many rules are there?
• Page Volume - Are the rules 10 pages or 100 pages?
• Minutia - How many small aspects of the game are governed by rules?
• Flexibility - Do the rules apply to thematic actions or very specific actions?

 

[aramis erak]

This assumes the results are going to be a coherent narrative. That's far from a given.



My experience does not tell me that in a situation without exterior constraints there's any assurance that both sides will find the other's valid. That's rather my point.

In general, while I don't like doing so, rules light settingless is a doable thing, and it doesn't seem arbitrary most of the time. For me, it seems like more work in session than I care for, since extrapolating from the fiction isn't intuitive for me, but extrapolating to a task system can be.

For task systems, my first step is to see what the labels seem to make as the default ability assumption. As an example
For 2300 AD... (aka Traveller: 2300 2e)
Atts are 4d6-4 (reroll on 0), so 1-20; skills tend to be in the range 0-4, with 3 medicine being equivalent ton a newly graduated MD, and 1 being employable. (Atts are not the same as other traveller, but the skill range is close to that of CT, MT, and MGT(both).)
A task uses two "assets"... an asset being any of (A) Attribute/5, (B) Skill level, (C) a value from a specific device.
To do ____, difficulty, Asset A, Asset B, Time Increment.
Difficulties: Simple 3+, Routine 7+, Difficult 11+, Formidable 15+, Impossible 19+
Dice 1d10 + Asset A + Asset B for Difficulty TN+. Nat 1 is mishap if it's a failure. Failure by 2+ is also a mishap; both nat 1 and fail by 3 is a aggrivated mishap.
TIme (3d6 - (Asset A + Asset B)) × Time Increment
Extra time: double the 3d6, but shift difficulty down 1 step
Rushed: halve the 3d6, but shift difficulty up 1.
Joann Average is going to be att 10 and skill 1 in field.
So, on a typical Att+Skill task...
Simple: Automatic unless rushed, since 1d10+3 is minimum 4, vs 3+
Routine: Automatic if extra time. Normal time is minimum roll 4, so fail by 3 on nat 1, thus a mishap is 20% unless extra time, with half being aggrivated.
Difficult: nat 4+ if extra time, nat 8+ if not.
Formidable nat 8+ on extra time, not possible without extra time (nat 12 on 1d10), and without extra time, it's always a mishap.
Impossible the shift for extra time still needs a natural 12 (=15-3), so Joanne cannot succeed at all.

So, knowing that emploable journeyman tradesperson is the basis means I can make calls based upon that standard.

2300 isn't exactly rules light, but the task system makes it much lighter than it could be. It also makes my rulings more intuitive to me, and less arbitrary, since I can ask if a Journeyperson in a Trade should be able to pull it off... It is a big wide on the granularity, but that serves to reduce the arbitrariness.

For WEG d6,
All dice d6. attribute ranges is 1d to 4d for humans, skills range from 0d+1 above att, to maybe 10d above, but for starting PCs, 2d above, 3d if specializations are in that flavor in use. (SW 2E, and the D6 Space, D6 Fantasy, and D6 Adventure; most others don't have specialties)
Typical PC att is 3D. Typical main skill +2D, so 5D or so.
Extra Time: ×2=+1D, ×4=+2D, ×8=+3D.
Rushed -25%=TN+5, -50%=TN+10, -75=TN+20

Numbers version Very Easy 5, Easy 10, Moderate 15, Difficult 20, VDifficult 25, Heroic 30, Legendary 40
VE, no extra time is 100%
E is 98.38%
M is 77.85%
D is 30.52%
VD is 3.24%
H is 0.1%
L is 0%
Rushing essentially shifts 1, 2, or 4 difficulties harder.
This gives me a baseline... note that it's for Abby Peecee, not Joanna Normal, as normal folk have only 2d average atts.
(VE 99.92%, E 90.28%, M 44.37%, D 5.4%, VD & up: 0%
So Moderate is the kind of thing Joanna Normal takes extra time, and fails occasionally, and Abby Peecee can do most of the time without extra time, but will take the extra time to ensure success outside of combat.

Those frameworks make it very easy for me to make on the fly rulings consistently, since I can work from "what a normal can do."

 

[pemerton]

The false scrying effect seems redundant here. Wouldn't the scryer just be able to write the message in reality and thus convey the same information?

No, primarily because of the way the scrying guard interacts with the range of spells (eg if a character is in Greyhawk, but has a "false scrying" illusion that places them in Dyvers, then a relevant scrying spell that can reach to Dyvers but not Greyhawk will trigger the illusion).

 

[Cadence]

The Rolemaster supplement Rolemaster Companion II introduces a variety of spells that block or mislead scrying. One of them creates an illusory result that the scryer receives in place of the truth of the protected individual or place.

One of my players realised that this could be used to circumvent range limits on other information-conveying spells: rather than use an <appropriate range> Mind Speech or Long Whisper spell, for instance, a character could create a "false scrying" of themself writing a message, and then the another character could use an <appropriate range> scrying or detection spell, of lower level than the Mind Speech spell, to scry on the scrying-protected character, thus learning the message.

We established a "gentlemen's agreement" at our table to ignore this loophole. But it remained technically open, because closing it, while maintaining the intended utility of the "false scrying" effect, was a far from trivial technical endeavour. (Which became increasingly clear as changes were made to clean up other issues with the protection-from-scrying effects that couldn't just be set to one side.)

That seems clever. So they'd need to have worked out the time they were going to communicate in advance with this? Or did the false scrying last a long time and just repeat the same message? (How did it break things?).

For instance, if one character piggybacks (or otherwise carries) another on their turn, and then the carried character takes their turn subsequently in the same round, the second character can end up moving further than normally possible not for any reason that makes obvious sense in the fiction, but because of the action economy and its "stop motion" application. This happened occasionally in my long-running 4e D&D game. There is no straightforward way to close this loophole that I'm aware of, and when it did happen I think we mostly just ignored it or laughed about it - it was never pervasive enough to seriously threaten anyone's overall sense of the fiction and its relationship to the mechanics.

Did 4e have rules for carrying another person, or just one for mounts? (I assume it had one for mounts?)

 

[GrahamWills]

Did 4e have rules for carrying another person, or just one for mounts? (I assume it had one for mounts?)

Carrying, Lifting, and Dragging

Adventurers carry a lot of gear. When that quantity becomes extreme, it might be enough to slow you down and otherwise hamper your capabilities. The amount you carry should rarely be an issue, and you don’t need to calculate the weight your character is hauling around unless it’s likely to...

dnd4.fandom.com

To carry something, you get full move if the total weight carried is less than 10x your strength. Monks are the best at this, typically able to carry 150 lbs of adventurers without issue. But if you have a pixie in your party, it’s trivial to carry!

 

[Cadence]

Carrying, Lifting, and Dragging

Adventurers carry a lot of gear. When that quantity becomes extreme, it might be enough to slow you down and otherwise hamper your capabilities. The amount you carry should rarely be an issue, and you don’t need to calculate the weight your character is hauling around unless it’s likely to...

dnd4.fandom.com

Thanks for the link!

To carry something, you get full move if the total weight carried is less than 10x your strength. Monks are the best at this, typically able to carry 150 lbs of adventurers without issue. But if you have a pixie in your party, it’s trivial to carry!

Is it odd to not treat the carried person (at best for them) as mounted?

Mount

A mount is a creature that permits another creature to ride it. To be a mount, a creature must meet two requirements: Size: The creature's size category must be larger than its rider's. For instance, a mount for a Medium creature must be Large or larger. Willing: The creature must be a willing...

dnd4.fandom.com

 

[pemerton]

That seems clever. So they'd need to have worked out the time they were going to communicate in advance with this? Or did the false scrying last a long time and just repeat the same message? (How did it break things?).

I'm remembering from about 25 years ago - but as I recall, the (notional) plan was to set up the false scrying image, and then the other character would check in 1x/day (normally just before resting to regain power points) and get the most recent update. It breaks things by making the communication abilities - Mind Speech, Long Whisper, etc - redundant and/or overpriced in spell points.

Did 4e have rules for carrying another person, or just one for mounts? (I assume it had one for mounts?)

Is it odd to not treat the carried person (at best for them) as mounted?

The mount rules seem to envisage acting while mounted, rather than being carried (like luggage) from place-to-place and then acting once deposited at the new place.

Similar issues arise when disembarking from vehicles during combat - movement doesn't break while being used to move about the deck/floor of a vehicle, but a character who gets moved from A to B by the vehicle and then gets off and takes their action, moving a further distance again, seems a bit weird. Put a pixie on their shoulder who flies off once the character has moved and it gets even weirder!

It's a side effect of the stop-motion approach to resolution. It can't happen in simultaneous resolution frameworks like (say) Rolemaster in most of its initiative options, or classic D&D "side" initiative. But given it's a corner case (at least in my experience) it is not worth the technical effort that would be required to fix it.

 

[GrahamWills]

Thanks for the link!

Is it odd to not treat the carried person (at best for them) as mounted?

Mount

A mount is a creature that permits another creature to ride it. To be a mount, a creature must meet two requirements: Size: The creature's size category must be larger than its rider's. For instance, a mount for a Medium creature must be Large or larger. Willing: The creature must be a willing...

dnd4.fandom.com

It's a question of control. If A is mounted on B, the assumption is that A controls the movement -- you control your mount. In 4E terms, the mount moves on the controllers turn and is subject to those rules. There are a lot of mount rules that then come into play.

Carrying someone is different. It's a light rules situation where the carrier is in control. I guess the carrier could give up their turns and become a mount, but there's no requirement to do so (and I think some rules that may control how/if that is possible)

 

[Umbran]

I'm afraid I'm hard pressed ...

When you spend no visible effort, saying that is not persuasive.

Maybe if I break it down like this -
"I am hard pressed to understand this otherwise, so I should...
A) just assert I am right, even if that is insulting.
B) spend a modicum of effort to learn more.
C) accept that my inability does not equate to truth, and not pass judgement when I don't really have to."

#2 and #3 are in accordance with the Golden Rule and Wheaton's Law. #1 not so much.

 

[Thomas Shey]

When you spend no visible effort, saying that is not persuasive.

Again, I'm perfectly willing to have someone tell me a reason that you'd just accept a bad rule and move on (note, again, that as I mentioned "we have a gentleman's agreement not to press on this problem" is not just accepting it from where I sit, though I don't think its ideal). I've yet to see anyone present one. If that's offensive, so be it.