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

[Snarf Zagyg]

To me at least, a definition of "light" that only covers games up to 6 pages is so narrow as to be unusable. I'd suggest "ultra-light" or something for that, to indicate that it goes beyond the "normal" light. It's like saying that to be considered "light", a vehicle has to weigh about the same as a bike or less.

Well, that's why I made sure to say what it meant to me.

Look, these are arbitrary definitions. There is no set meaning. For example, someone who is all like, "I play all the TTRPGs, from Pathfinder to D&D!!!!!" the idea that a game has six pages or less of rules is probably bizarre.

But for someone who plays a lot of indie and bespoke light RPGs, the idea of trying to differentiate the games that have a lot of crunch between light, medium, and heavy also seems weird. They are all crunchy. A little more or less doesn't really make a difference.*

Light, to me, means just that- light. And I think it's important to make this distinction, simply because so many people are used to the rules-heavy games that they aren't able to understand how truly light RPGs exist- as they have since the beginning.


*Okay, there are some games with obscene amounts of crunch, or that are infamous for the difficulty. Phoenix Command? But I think that trying to divide up already crunchy games into smaller segments is fairly uninteresting.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Isn't one of the keys to "rules light" is that we answer those questions with what makes sense in the fiction, and failing any particular aspect of the fiction in that regard, what makes sense in the real world? That is to say, damage type tags like "fire" and "cold" that don't do anything in the game system beyond what they do in the world, are superfluous.

Now ask those questions of any three people sitting around a table and see what happens. In practice, if fire spells are going to be assumed to do that, either the question will be answered in the printed rules, in house-rules, or in house-rules-in-everything-but-name (i.e. convention). Any of the three are still rules relevant, even if people like to claim that's not what the third case is.

Edit: And I should note the answer could well be in the printed rules and still be pretty light. "Fire spells don't ignite things" might be an odd take, but its still a rule and doesn't exactly tie up a lot of landscape. Far as that goes "elemental spells don't produce any side effects" covering the whole shebang.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, that's why I made sure to say what it meant to me.

Look, these are arbitrary definitions. There is no set meaning. For example, someone who is all like, "I play all the TTRPGs, from Pathfinder to D&D!!!!!" the idea that a game has six pages or less of rules is probably bizarre.

But for someone who plays a lot of indie and bespoke light RPGs, the idea of trying to differentiate the games that have a lot of crunch between light, medium, and heavy also seems weird. They are all crunchy. A little more or less doesn't really make a difference.*

Light, to me, means just that- light. And I think it's important to make this distinction, simply because so many people are used to the rules-heavy games that they aren't able to understand how truly light RPGs exist- as they have since the beginning.


*Okay, there are some games with obscene amounts of crunch, or that are infamous for the difficulty. Phoenix Command? But I think that trying to divide up already crunchy games into smaller segments is fairly uninteresting.

I think the point is that your definition excludes probably the vast majority of games that people are referring to when they use the term "rules light". Your definition might be useful for your internal model, but I'm kind of thinking its not going to be useful for general discussion.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think the point is that your definition excludes probably the vast majority of games that people are referring to when they use the term "rules light". Your definition might be useful for your internal model, but I'm kind of thinking its not going to be useful for general discussion.

That some people are trapped in the paradigm of crunch is an issue that I will always point out.

When I want crunch, like the Captain, I go and get it. But it's important to reiterate that this is probably the fundamental yin/yang of the hobby, and has been since the beginning. Rules light should mean just that- rules that can be expressed in six pages or less. If you can't get the rules in less than six pages, it's not light.

Discussing degrees of crunch is fine! But don't tell me that crunchy games are rules light.

 

[payn]

View attachment 375765

That some people are trapped in the paradigm of crunch is an issue that I will always point out.

When I want crunch, like the Captain, I go and get it. But it's important to reiterate that this is probably the fundamental yin/yang of the hobby, and has been since the beginning. Rules light should mean just that- rules that can be expressed in six pages or less. If you can't get the rules in less than six pages, it's not light.

Discussing degrees of crunch is fine! But don't tell me that crunchy games are rules light.

Everyone knows Captain's crunch cuts the roof of your mouth. Dont tell us it dont

 

[Celebrim]

My point was that people making the assertions (GM or PC) makes for lighter rules than rules making the assertions.

Rulings are rules. Failing to write down the rules doesn't make the process of play inherently simpler or easier. The process of smithing and applying rulings is part of the complexity of the system. The only thing that makes things lighter is forgoing certain aesthetics. For example, "Make Believe" is quite light but typically is superseded as participants mature because they want more and more cooperative of competitive aesthetics (observe the processes of play of "make believe" while you have children small enough for it; it's very educational).

I think that you were aiming for "light rules support GM agency, and heavy rules support PC agency." True in some cases, but both of your examples assume that the GM has all authority not allocated to the rules, which is not always true.

By default, because they are the secret keeper, GMs have all the narrative authority which the rules do not cede to them.

So if you want to have player narrative authority, you have to have a rules framework for supporting that of some sort because it's not fun for the same participant to both introduce the problem and its solution or even for the solution to a problem to be merely because I said so. All games which are fun for the player require the player to struggle to find a solution given some limited resource. So if you give a player fiat authority to solve problems, that authority itself requires restrictions and therefor rules describing those restrictions.

Games with player narrative authority whether light or heavy have more rules than equivalent games without player narrative authority.

Notice that agency is not remotely the same as narrative authority, as you can have tons of player agency without the player having any direct narrative authority. It's different to assert you can change the scene through a proposition like "I want to punch Cthulhu in the face" than it is to assert you can change the scene by fiat introduction of new facts. Agency involves the ability to change the scene by any means. Narrative authority is the ability to change the scene by fiat. Players never have fiat authority unless the game provides some framework for it, whereas GMs always have fiat authority except where the rules restrict it. A ruleless RPG is almost a contradiction in terms, in that if you had one it would cease to be an RPG and become a Bronstein which is a type of game which neither has nor needs rules because the GM has limitless fiat authority.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Discussing degrees of crunch is fine! But don't tell me that crunchy games are rules light.

When you define crunch rather that broadly, I'd get used to being told that rather a lot.

 

[Thomas Shey]

A ruleless RPG is almost a contradiction in terms, in that if you had one it would cease to be an RPG and become a Bronstein which is a type of game which neither has nor needs rules because the GM has limitless fiat authority.

How do you count games where results are negotiated among the player rather than have any real rules per se? IF they still exist, consent based MUSHes operate that way. At best, most of them have, from lack of a better term, "reference material" regarding the characters and setting that set the base of the negotiation process.

 

[CleverNickName]

A "light" RPG is Dread.
A "crunchy" RPG is Pathfinder.
I'd put B/X or BECM D&D right in the middle between those two.

 

[payn]

A "light" RPG is Dread.
A "crunchy" RPG is Pathfinder.
I'd put B/X or BECM D&D right in the middle between those two.