I think you're onto something but there's one key point I would quibble over. I don't agree that the rules in rules light games are treated as a 'necessary evil'. I think for the most part they are absolutely as essential and valued as in a crunchier game, they are just trying to do a different thing. They're not trying to embody all the different factors that lead in to a particular conflict outcome, like a crunchy game is. But they do still try to be a neutral and decisive arbiter of those same conflicts. They are just 'cutting to the chase' to a certain extent and allowing the various contributing details within the gameworld to be reflected only in the narration and framing or through broad umbrella traits. Note that they may also have other levers available not commonly found in crunchier games, such as escalation mechanics or metagame points. But that 'the system makes the decision' aspect is still absolutely key to making those games work.
What is a "Light" RPG? What is a "Crunchy" RPG?
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
I think you're onto something but there's one key point I would quibble over. I don't agree that the rules in rules light games are treated as a 'necessary evil'. I think for the most part they are absolutely as essential and valued as in a crunchier game, they are just trying to do a different thing. They're not trying to embody all the different factors that lead in to a particular conflict outcome, like a crunchy game is. But they do still try to be a neutral and decisive arbiter of those same conflicts. They are just 'cutting to the chase' to a certain extent and allowing the various contributing details within the gameworld to be reflected only in the narration and framing or through broad umbrella traits. Note that they may also have other levers available not commonly found in crunchier games, such as escalation mechanics or metagame points. But that 'the system makes the decision' aspect is still absolutely key to making those games work.
Eh. I mean, sure, the dice speak truth, but only because we agree that the die rolls shall be truth.
But form there, you seem to be conflating or confusing common/traditional focus of crunch with goals of play. In a lot of (what for lack of a better term I'll call "non-traditional") games, "truths about the game world" really isn't the interesting bit.
More narrative focused games are apt to want to know truths about the characters, or about the narrative. And in theory, we could make that a very crunchy process. We may tend not to, though, due to how ownership and sharing of "the game world" is different from that of character or narrative.
And, well, there are diceless games - games without any introduction of random elements at all. Those could still be crunchy, but you aren't listening to dice. Or games like Everway that have a random element, but it isn't speaking objective "truth", but giving prompts to human interpretation like a tarot reading.
Celebrim
Legend
A 'Light RPG' places most of the responsibility on the GM. The rules are generally little more than broad guidelines for pass fail mechanics. The game is almost entirely in the hands of the GM. Fortune mechanics tend to have little granularity. You tend to see a lot of rolls resolved by a coin flip or D6 or similarly simple means.
A 'Crunchy RPG' places more of the responsibility on the rules. The rules packetize agency and narrative control so that players have a much stronger understanding of how proposition A is going to lead to either game state B or C depending on the outcome of the fortune. Fortune mechanics tend to have a lot of granularity. Players also typically have much finer control over the question, "What is my character good at?" and much more concrete options during chargen.
A 'Crunchy RPG' places more of the responsibility on the rules. The rules packetize agency and narrative control so that players have a much stronger understanding of how proposition A is going to lead to either game state B or C depending on the outcome of the fortune. Fortune mechanics tend to have a lot of granularity. Players also typically have much finer control over the question, "What is my character good at?" and much more concrete options during chargen.
I tend to think about this as multi-dimensional.
Chargen
GM Prep
General mechanics
Combat ( and other specialty mechanics, say Netrunning )
Character growth
Crunchy, for me is about the number of dials to keep track of and how many decisions into the future I need to take in advance. I don't like to design a character past the starting point. Games that assume optimal builds ( why to you allow suboptimal if your mechanics require optimal!?) requiring I make decisions now for character grow 9 months down the road are crunchy, to me. Is chargen a mini-game in and of itself?
GM Prep I do rarely so I would trust others to speak on more but I assume this largely centers on how easily the game supports scaling the challenges as characters grow.
General Mechanics, how much of what I do on the regular do I need to look up, vs remember. For purposes of remembering, I consider charsheet charts and the average 3 panel GM screen an auxiliary brain. :") The terse how-to should fit in 2-4 pages.
Combat - or really any opposed challenges. Again with lookup requirements, but also taking into account how quickly and easily the "next player up" is involved from the previous, decision paralysis, and speed of the resolution mechanic.
Growth kinda dovetails in the "how many decisions down the road" problem.
aramis erak
Legend
The wording of the question, to me, is a false opposition, conflating two different axises of the experience...
Light: rules are simple and/or fast to resolve
heavy: rules are complex and/or take significant resolution time
Crunchy: rules are used a lot and drive the story situation
Smooth: rules are used either little, or are not overly intrusive against the flow of play.
One of the crunchiest games I've run is also rules light: Blood and Honor. Since anything that affects a character sheet goes to resolution, and more than half of play wound up being using the rather simple conflict system... I'd put it at about 3/5 of the sessions were spent in resolution... but that resolution also directly resulted in story beats, and were largely driving play... I'm not counting the 1/10 of sessions spent waiting on certain players to work through analysis paralysis. So, only 3/10 of session time was spent in actual non-mechanically driven narration. The entire game's rules can be reduced to about 3 letter pages of readably large text (12pt) outlines/flowcharts, including the (predefined) aspects.
Likewise, despite the plethora of tables, Rolemaster's pretty smooth in play. The tables are straightforward in use. outside combat, only two get much use: Moving Maneuver and Static Maneuver. In combat, if one's well organized, it runs fast and easy... part of that is putting the needed weapon tables for PCs in player hands so the GM isn't looking them up. This also encourages similarity of armament for foes. Character gen, tho'... oy.
John R Davis
Hero
Yeah. I love RM , never understood why people make it seem SO complicated, as it's kinda unified system no matter what you do.
Though I do remember a painful character creation session trying to explain what 2/6 meant for a skill cost and several people just not getting it.
Though I do remember a painful character creation session trying to explain what 2/6 meant for a skill cost and several people just not getting it.
GMMichael
Guide of Modos
Are we seeing any consensus here, or is it pointless to make rules-light/heavy references?
Let's not forget that the PCs can make decisions too.
So, the rules hold the authority, or the rules are granular? Or both?
Aha - I might see my new term here: book-open or book-closed games.
Thomas Shey
Legend
Though I admit to bouncing myself when I tried to get into Spacemaster many a year ago--and keep in mind I was a guy who played the Hero System and most of the FGU output without blinking--I suspect the tables really were offputting to some people, and I'm not entirely sure why.
