What is a "Light" RPG? What is a "Crunchy" RPG?

[pemerton]

Now, if someone wants to walk across that frozen water--what does that mean? I'll argue that those decisions are, indeed, house rules.

Suppose that the scene-setting narration includes "A fierce storm is howling!" And then player A declares that their PC says something to character B. Can A talk to B despite the noise of the storm?

I'm sure there are some RPGs that treat this via a discrete rules subsystem - and those might then require a ruling, or a "house rule", as to what sort of penalty the noise of the storm imposes to (say) a Listen check.

But in (say) Prince Valiant this does not require a house rule. The GM just applies the standard rule for resolution - the GM decides whether or not to call for a test, based on whether there is anything at stake in success or failure, and (if there is) assigning a difficulty for the test on Oration.

Walking on ice is the same - that would be a test on Agility.

MHRP uses a different, less task-oriented approach to resolution. What is at stake in the character walking on the ice? That will tell us what is mechanically going on (are they attacking, creating an asset, depleting a Scene Distinction, etc?). The ice then figures as an opposing factor in resolution, to be incorporated as in my reply just upthread.

And that is not house-ruling. That's just playing the game. The GM deciding how heavily to weight some opposing consideration, in the context of MHRP, is no more a house rule than a D&D GM deciding what direction the dragon breathes in. It's a moment of game play, not the creation of some binding norm.

If, next time, the GM thinks the presence of ice in the scene is not interesting, or is interesting for a different reason (eg that Pyro is going to melt it), they are at liberty to use any of the various mechanical resources at their disposal to make it a factor, or non-factor, in whatever way those mechanics permit.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Out of curiosity, what are they? I am trying to come up with an in-fiction metacurrency and outside of Mage: The Awakening (I forget the name of the force) I can't think of one.

ETA: Except Force Points I guess.

Possibilities in TORG. They're even vaguely individualized (in the sense people sometimes talk about them that way in-setting, though "Possibility energy" or the like is more common).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Suppose that the scene-setting narration includes "A fierce storm is howling!" And then player A declares that their PC says something to character B. Can A talk to B despite the noise of the storm?

I'm sure there are some RPGs that treat this via a discrete rules subsystem - and those might then require a ruling, or a "house rule", as to what sort of penalty the noise of the storm imposes to (say) a Listen check.

But in (say) Prince Valiant this does not require a house rule. The GM just applies the standard rule for resolution - the GM decides whether or not to call for a test, based on whether there is anything at stake in success or failure, and (if there is) assigning a difficulty for the test on Oration.

Walking on ice is the same - that would be a test on Agility.

And as far as I'm concerned, every time he does that he's making a rule. Or he's not caring about consistency.

(To be clear, sometimes this is necessary--no rules set can cover every possible situation without the GM or the group having to do rule-making because the overhead in terms of rules text is too high for the frequency the event will occur. But the more often the situation comes up, the more it turns into a house rule--or the more they've decided consistency in that context is unimportant to them. I don't consider there to be a third case).

MHRP uses a different, less task-oriented approach to resolution. What is at stake in the character walking on the ice? That will tell us what is mechanically going on (are they attacking, creating an asset, depleting a Scene Distinction, etc?). The ice then figures as an opposing factor in resolution, to be incorporated as in my reply just upthread.

And that is not house-ruling. That's just playing the game. The GM deciding how heavily to weight some opposing consideration, in the context of MHRP, is no more a house rule than a D&D GM deciding what direction the dragon breathes in. It's a moment of game play, not the creation of some binding norm.

Its house-ruling the moment any attempt to impose consistency on it occurs.

If, next time, the GM thinks the presence of ice in the scene is not interesting, or is interesting for a different reason (eg that Pyro is going to melt it), they are at liberty to use any of the various mechanical resources at their disposal to make it a factor, or non-factor, in whatever way those mechanics permit.

At which point they've decided they don't care about consistency in that context. They wouldn't be doing anything different if they simply decided the consequence randomly. And that only works as long as the players involved are also similarly unconcerned.

 

[pemerton]

And as far as I'm concerned, every time he does that he's making a rule. Or he's not caring about consistency.

(To be clear, sometimes this is necessary--no rules set can cover every possible situation without the GM or the group having to do rule-making because the overhead in terms of rules text is too high for the frequency the event will occur. But the more often the situation comes up, the more it turns into a house rule--or the more they've decided consistency in that context is unimportant to them. I don't consider there to be a third case).



Its house-ruling the moment any attempt to impose consistency on it occurs.



At which point they've decided they don't care about consistency in that context. They wouldn't be doing anything different if they simply decided the consequence randomly. And that only works as long as the players involved are also similarly unconcerned.

You seem to be confusing "caring about consistency" with "using a resolution system that would not be out of place in RuneQuest or GURPS".

In RQ or GURPS, the emotional or thematic significance of the PC walking across the ice does not matter to how that declared action is resolved. In most of the RPGs I GM, it does matter. That doesn't mean that I don't care about consistency.

I mean, sometimes people walk across ice and sometimes they don't. Sometimes people's words are heard despite the wind, and sometimes they are not. It's not a lack of consistency that these outcomes are, in some fashion, correlated to the emotional or thematic significance of what is going on in the fiction.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And as far as I'm concerned, every time he does that he's making a rule. Or he's not caring about consistency.

(To be clear, sometimes this is necessary--no rules set can cover every possible situation without the GM or the group having to do rule-making because the overhead in terms of rules text is too high for the frequency the event will occur. But the more often the situation comes up, the more it turns into a house rule--or the more they've decided consistency in that context is unimportant to them. I don't consider there to be a third case).

I am going to briefly interject. Because I've written so ... many ... words on this already. How many words? Well, here are the first five essays that came to mind!

D&D General - D&D's Evolution: Rulings, Rules, and "System Matters"

Late last night, I ran across an interesting and excellent post by @Malmuria which helped crystalize some thoughts I had been having recently about D&D's evolution. Just to make this clear- you can blame Malmuria for this short essay. Repeat- you can blame Malmuria. Unless you really like what...

www.enworld.org

D&D 5E - Breakin' the Law! Thoughts on Rules in 5e

This is part 3 (and the end of the totally not-controversial trilogy) regarding D&D and 5e that have been brought up due to some recent conversations, this one dealing with rules. Please note that I am going to try and use words in their, um, natural language (it's 5e!) so as to allow a...

www.enworld.org

D&D 5E - Context Switching Paralysis, or Why we Will Always Have the Thief Debate

Among a certain group of people, there is a driven need to use a mocking term (we'll call it "MMI") to refer to playing D&D and other types of games. However, while the specific pejorative term may have been coined in 2005, the actual debate and the issues it illuminates goes back much farther...

www.enworld.org

D&D General - FKR: How Fewer Rules Can Make D&D Better

A lot of the time, I fail my own wisdom saving throw. I sometimes will refer to FKR with the assumption that people will know what I'm talking about, given that I've written about it in the past. However, as @Micah Sweet recently reminded me, that is not the case. So, since it has been a while...

www.enworld.org

D&D General - Rules, Rulings and Second Order Design: D&D and AD&D Examined

I was just reading the excellent posting by M.T. Black about Dragon Magazine number 67, mentioning Gary "Jake" Jaquet, and it reminded me of an interview Jaquet did some time ago. In an effort to avoid finishing my series of posts about dice mechanics, I've been writing about some issues with...

www.enworld.org

I will reiterate that the issue of how many rules to have is something that we see going back to the beginning of the hobby. I would add that that IME the following two things are both true-

The more narrowly tailored the game, the easier it is to have it be either rules lite, or to have the rules encompass the entirety of the game.

That's a weird statement to unpack, so I'll be more specific. Games that have a very narrow focus can have a bespoke rules set that encompasses all of what is going to happen. For example, BiTD is not super crunchy, but because it is limited in scope (setting, genre, possibilities within the game), it is relatively simply to design rules that should deal with everything that goes on. In a similar vein, a super-specific rules lite game (such as Disco Party Athletes, which I designed for Iron DM and posted before) is also easy, because it is constrained in the the agreed upon-fiction.

It's the games that really allow you to do a lot - the D&D style games - where we see more of this conflict. If you're only limited to your imagination, it becomes harder to make rules for everything. You can make a lot of rules in an area to channel activity toward it (combat!), but you can't make rules for all the possible interactions you will have with the fiction.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You seem to be confusing "caring about consistency" with "using a resolution system that would not be out of place in RuneQuest or GURPS".

You seem to be insisting that my stating most rules light games have a lot of house rules with my insisting that the core rules be less light. That's not my statement; I just claim that the attempt to claim what is going on there is not house ruling is a counterfactual. House rules don't have to be written down (I think its usually virtuous when they are, but its not a necessity). Most of them probably never are.

In RQ or GURPS, the emotional or thematic significance of the PC walking across the ice does not matter to how that declared action is resolved. In most of the RPGs I GM, it does matter. That doesn't mean that I don't care about consistency.

I mean, sometimes people walk across ice and sometimes they don't. Sometimes people's words are heard despite the wind, and sometimes they are not. It's not a lack of consistency that these outcomes are, in some fashion, correlated to the emotional or thematic significance of what is going on in the fiction.

Actually, I'd claim it very much is. Its just that in those cases consistency isn't viewed as the primary virtue. Sometimes people don't care that much, or care very much more for the thematic significance you reference. Even in those cases however, that thematic significance can be a question that is not universally agreed on by all concerned, and making it up as you go is not always helpful in that regard. It still fails the "are we putting everyone on the same page" test.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I will reiterate that the issue of how many rules to have is something that we see going back to the beginning of the hobby. I would add that that IME the following two things are both true-

The more narrowly tailored the game, the easier it is to have it be either rules lite, or to have the rules encompass the entirety of the game.

I'd generally agree with that, though I think I have to note that there's a caveat where the game is not always tailored as narrowly as the designer thinks it is (or alternately the people playing it are not always staying within those lines well).

That's a weird statement to unpack, so I'll be more specific. Games that have a very narrow focus can have a bespoke rules set that encompasses all of what is going to happen. For example, BiTD is not super crunchy, but because it is limited in scope (setting, genre, possibilities within the game), it is relatively simply to design rules that should deal with everything that goes on. In a similar vein, a super-specific rules lite game (such as Disco Party Athletes, which I designed for Iron DM and posted before) is also easy, because it is constrained in the the agreed upon-fiction.

I also have to note the scope-of-resolution has an impact here. By that I mean (to use the ice case) if walking across the ice is never an issue, or is never considered an issue different from a number of other things, and the output from the intent to do so is going to be abstracted up enough, further rules are largely superfluous (where that degree of broad-strokes resolution will be satisfactory to all participants is a largely separate question).

It's the games that really allow you to do a lot - the D&D style games - where we see more of this conflict. If you're only limited to your imagination, it becomes harder to make rules for everything. You can make a lot of rules in an area to channel activity toward it (combat!), but you can't make rules for all the possible interactions you will have with the fiction.

I don't think I have a disagreement with any of this. I will, however, suggest that in some cases that theoretically have a limited scope-of-output, in actuality some of that output is very much tossed to the users (and possibly the GM, though many such games have less of a dominant role for that figure), and in those cases I'm still of the opinion that if anyone cares about consistency conventions or house rules will inevitably develop. In some there's no need because what variance in that output occurs is largely look-and-feel and will have little or no impact on the actual further mechanical resolution of anything, which will only be constrained by the actual mechanical output.

 

[pemerton]

I just claim that the attempt to claim what is going on there is not house ruling is a counterfactual.

When - in my play of MHRP - Bobby Drake's player declared "I freeze the Reflecting Pool, using Ice Mastery, so that we can skate on it" and then I, as GM, adjudicated the result of the player's dice pool vs my roll of the Doom Pool, what was the house rule?

It still fails the "are we putting everyone on the same page" test.

In what way did my adjudication in MHRP "Not put everyone on the same page"?

I'm still of the opinion that if anyone cares about consistency conventions or house rules will inevitably develop.

This an empirical conjecture. What is your evidence base? I mean, I've presented mine - my own play, with examples given. What's yours?

I think it's also worth noting that there is no theoretical reason to suppose that your conjecture is true. If all RPGs had to work in the style of RuneQuest or GURPS then there would be a theoretical basis for your conjecture; but as is well known, they don't.

 

[Thomas Shey]

When - in my play of MHRP - Bobby Drake's player declared "I freeze the Reflecting Pool, using Ice Mastery, so that we can skate on it" and then I, as GM, adjudicated the result of the player's dice pool vs my roll of the Doom Pool, what was the house rule?

You have not provided enough information.

1. Did you declare they did not need to make any die rolls to do so? Or declare a particular set of rolls was required to do so without some sort of consequence?

2. Did it occur more than once?

If the answer to both of these is "Yes" then my answer is also yes.

In what way did my adjudication in MHRP "Not put everyone on the same page"?

It might have. I direct you to my above text.

If it was a one-off, however, it tells them nothing beyond what you're doing in this one isolated situation. That doesn't do anything to set people on the same page unless they all assume you'll do the same thing if something like it comes up again, in which case, again, its functioned as a house convention.

This an empirical conjecture. What is your evidence base? I mean, I've presented mine - my own play, with examples given. What's yours?

Because by all evidence, you have indeed had house rules. You're just resistant to calling them that.

I think it's also worth noting that there is no theoretical reason to suppose that your conjecture is true. If all RPGs had to work in the style of RuneQuest or GURPS then there would be a theoretical basis for your conjecture; but as is well known, they don't.

I don't think it makes the least difference. I think the problem is you're working with an extremely narrow definition of house rule. House rules are the same as group conventions, and I have no evidence at all that any group with any sense of consistency doesn't have that--in fact, I don't believe it is, indeed, possible.

 

[GMMichael]

This looks like the perfect arguing-past-each-other time for me to swing by and suggest:

The rules of a book-closed game can fit on one page if needed...

. . . or on the up-to-six pages mentioned upthread.

Yes, the character sheet does act as a rules-vessel, so it's probably worthwhile to mention that if reading a character sheet takes as long as searching the book for a rule (or list item), then that reference counts as a book-open game.

It's also book-closed if using the vessel feels like this: