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

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I'm not going to say its impossible; but let's just say that experience with system-free roleplaying many years ago has taught me the result is far more hit or miss than I care for. If that's not other people's experience, then obviously they're going to see it differently than I do.

(I do agree that working from a common metric helps considerably in consistency, but I still maintain that it throws detail over to the GM and player in a way I do not expect good outcomes from on any reliable basis, and that's over and above whether the GM in GMed games is going to use the same standard for difficulty from one time to the next. That's not only irritating on a game level, I think its kind of a fiction-fail to boot).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I disagree. Generally speaking, the DM will come up with something that makes sense in the moment.

And in my experience, that decision will often be inconsistent, and not infrequently just bad, especially because they're doing it in the moment. As I said, other people with different experiences will see it differently.

 

[overgeeked]

And in my experience, that decision will often be inconsistent, and not infrequently just bad, especially because they're doing it in the moment. As I said, other people with different experiences will see it differently.

Inconsistent with what? Bad for who? As said above, consistent rules that product incoherent fiction are bad. The fiction is ll that matters. Rules be damned.

A DM making a ruling in the moment doesn’t need to be consistent. They just need to make a ruling that makes sense given the fiction of the game world in that unique moment. It literally doesn’t matter if this time it’s a roll under X and next time it’s a roll over Y. What makes sense now doesn’t need to make sense later (mechanically), nor be consistent with what’s come before (mechanically). You can’t step in the same river twice, and all that. Only the fiction of the game needs to be consistent and make sense.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Inconsistent with what?

With similar situations with no obvious major differences to justify the difference in resolution.

Bad for who?

The people having to deal with the decision.

As said above, consistent rules that product incoherent fiction are bad. The fiction is ll that matters. Rules be damned.

A DM making a ruling in the moment doesn’t need to be consistent. They just need to make a ruling that makes sense given the fiction of the game world in that unique moment. It literally doesn’t matter if this time it’s a roll under X and next time it’s a roll over Y. What makes sense now doesn’t need to make sense later (mechanically), nor be consistent with what’s come before (mechanically). You can’t step in the same river twice, and all that. Only the fiction of the game needs to be consistent and make sense.

And I disagree. Over and above my not thinking this even produces good fiction, I'm also here to play a game, and not having any idea what the GM will do from one time to the next damages my ability to do that, and if I do it as a GM, it damages the ability of players to do that. If that doesn't matter to you, that's you, but I'm not required to share your position or desires.

 

[overgeeked]

With similar situations with no obvious major differences to justify the difference in resolution.

Simar situations handled similarly, mechanically. Not identically. Roll this and add that in both cases. Roll those against these in both cases. How would that be inconsistent?

The people having to deal with the decision.

The players at the table playing a game with a human Referee. The Referee being able to make a call is a feature, not a bug. Playing to find out what happens is the joy of the thing. Inputting computer code and knowing the outcome before you even sit down is not.

And I disagree. Over and above my not thinking this even produces good fiction,

Consistent rules do not guarantee good fiction. In fact, insistence on consistent rules quite often makes for absurd fiction.

I'm also here to play a game, and not having any idea what the GM will do from one time to the next

DM’s making rulings are, generally speaking, not arbitrary. Consistent and not absurd fiction is more importnt than perfectly consistent rules. It sounds like you’d have more fun with a boardgame or video game then an RPG. Having a human Referee to make calls is a feature not a bug.

If that doesn't matter to you, that's you, but I'm not required to share your position or desires.

No one said you are. I don’t grok your position. You’d rather rules be followed precisely no matter the absurdity of the outcome, fiction be damned, and the DM to have no ability to make a call that you think is inconsistent. So why have a human Referee at all? Again, it sounds like video games or boardgames are what you want. The exact things that make RPGs great in themselves and different from video games and boardgames are the exact thing you don’t want.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No one said you are. I don’t grok your position. You’d rather rules be followed precisely no matter the absurdity of the outcome,

Given this misrepresentation, I don't think any further exchange with you is useful.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Are baseball and American football heavy or light?

My aunt is a lifelong baseball fan of the kind who keeps score cards while watching or listening to games, and tracks things like season RBI and such for her favorite players. She tracks promising players through minors into major league ball.

When I have a question or want a mediator on a baseball related argument, I call her. Like the time my friend and I argued about whether The Sandlot or A League of Their Own was the better baseball movie. She said that A League of Their Own is a beautiful movie about baseball players, but Sandlot is the best baseball movie, possibly ever.

But she doesn't know all the rules, and I've heard from her and a lot of other baseball nerds that knowing all the rules and interactions between rules in baseball is a hugely specialised skillset that 99% of fans shouldn't even try to achieve. Baseball is rules heavy.

 

[overgeeked]

My aunt is a lifelong baseball fan of the kind who keeps score cards while watching or listening to games, and tracks things like season RBI and such for her favorite players. She tracks promising players through minors into major league ball.

When I have a question or want a mediator on a baseball related argument, I call her. Like the time my friend and I argued about whether The Sandlot or A League of Their Own was the better baseball movie. She said that A League of Their Own is a beautiful movie about baseball players, but Sandlot is the best baseball movie, possibly ever.

But she doesn't know all the rules, and I've heard from her and a lot of other baseball nerds that knowing all the rules and interactions between rules in baseball is a hugely specialised skillset that 99% of fans shouldn't even try to achieve. Baseball is rules heavy.

The rules of baseball are 162 pages of mostly text with a few pictures for clarification. From my experience, if gamers were involved, they'd insist on memorizing exactly what the rules say and understand perfectly exactly how all the rules interact before even playing a game. Good thing the pros aren't that fastidious and can simply play the game and generally trust the umpires to know the rules.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The rules of baseball are 162 pages of mostly text with a few pictures for clarification. From my experience, if gamers were involved, they'd insist on memorizing exactly what the rules say and understand perfectly exactly how all the rules interact before even playing a game. Good thing the pros aren't that fastidious and can simply play the game and generally trust the umpires to know the rules.

Yep. Far as I know, most teams only have a few members at most who actually understand all the rules and how they interact, but umpires...man. Those folks are wild.

Also, my aunt told me a couple years ago about a game where the umpires had to like, huddle up and discuss the rules in order to figure something out, and she was like....damn, this game is complicated. lol

 

[pemerton]

experience with system-free roleplaying many years ago has taught me the result is far more hit or miss than I care for

It's possible to be pretty rules-lite but not system free. Many years ago the relevant games hadn't been invented yet - other than, maybe, Prince Valiant - but now they have.