When is Rules Lite Too Lite?

[MGibster]

After a horrifically long D&D campaign, my group switched over to Weird Heroes of Public Access. In WHPA, players are hosts of public access television shows who are tasked by the station manager with investigating various oddities around the small fictional town of Fairhaven. After a few sessions, the GM asked us how we were enjoying the game so far. One of the other players replied, "I'm having fun but I don't think it's because of the game itself."

There's really not much to the game itself. The rules for combat take up a single page. Character generation only takes up a few pages, and two of those pages are devoted to what abilities your character has depending on what kind of show they host. I don't even think there are any character advancement rules in the game. We've been playing for a few weeks and we're having fun, but at some point the lack of rules makes me feel as though we're just playing make believe instead of a game. I don't think I've ever played a game with so few rules before.

Anyone else experience this kind of thing with a rules lite game? In defense of WHPA, I don't think it was really designed to be played more than a few sessions at a time.

 

[jdrakeh]

I design a lot of rules-light games. The core rules are usually complete in less than ten pages. Some might refer to them as "Free Kriegsspiel" games. They lay out the absolute bare minimum rules and genre assumptions needed to play. They also assume that referees and the other players are willing to work together toward cooperative fun (if they aren't, the games will fall apart pretty quickly, IME). My most recent game, Steel in the Wind, gives you exactly enough rules to recreate the basic premise of Conan the Barbarian (the film) as a base scenario and rules enough to build a swords and sorcery campaign on that foundation. You can check out the PWYW (free, if you'd like) version HERE.

I cut my teeth on very rules-light games such as Fudge, GRAPE, Risus, Sherpa, Slug, Vox Draconis and similar freebies in the mid-to-late 90s when I was very poor, but I could afford to download and print free RPGs at the local library (shout out to John H. Kim's big-ass list of free RPGs on the Interwebs). A bunch of these are still online. A few of them leave something to be desired, mechanically speaking, but they absolutely sparked a creative fire in me that both got me into GMing and, later, into game design and development. I still love light, little, games as a result.

[Edit: Forgot to answer the question!]

No. I have never found myself in that position with rules-light games, but a few of the people I've played with have. The real key to having fun with rules-light games is being willing to let go of the idea that fun, in the long-term or otherwise, requires complex or voluminous rules. This is, for better or worse, something that many games have programmed people to believe for decades. Now, I have nothing against games with detailed rules (as my love of HarnMaster and Rolemaster will attest to), but I do harbor some resentment toward people who think that having fun with rules-light games is impossible, to the point that they won't even try them.

 

[jian]

After a horrifically long D&D campaign, my group switched over to Weird Heroes of Public Access. In WHPA, players are hosts of public access television shows who are tasked by the station manager with investigating various oddities around the small fictional town of Fairhaven. After a few sessions, the GM asked us how we were enjoying the game so far. One of the other players replied, "I'm having fun but I don't think it's because of the game itself."

There's really not much to the game itself. The rules for combat take up a single page. Character generation only takes up a few pages, and two of those pages are devoted to what abilities your character has depending on what kind of show they host. I don't even think there are any character advancement rules in the game. We've been playing for a few weeks and we're having fun, but at some point the lack of rules makes me feel as though we're just playing make believe instead of a game. I don't think I've ever played a game with so few rules before.

Anyone else experience this kind of thing with a rules lite game? In defense of WHPA, I don't think it was really designed to be played more than a few sessions at a time.

Honestly that sounds about average for a non-rules-heavy game like D&D. Most good narrative games like Cortex, Fate, or even Amber (which is diceless, of course) as well as more tactical but lighter games such as Tiny d6 or Lumen, have rules that can be summarised on a few pages, but they’re nonetheless solid and reliable. It really depends what you’re used to and how comfortable the table is with interpreting rules and situations together. There will always be edge cases and situations where the rules don’t apply clearly, it’s part of the fun of the game to work those out together.

 

[GMMichael]

Rules-light is too light when:

• the players are telling the GM what to do / characters are godlike
• one PC hogs the spotlight because the rules don't limit
• no one's sure what the ruling should be (because it's not in the book).

 

[ErisIndomina]

In my personal experience, "How lite is too lite" depends on the answer to another question: "What are you trying to get out of the game?" If it's a one-shot or a mini-campaign, very lite rules can hit the sweet spot. Also for odd situations like being on a 8-hour road trip in a van with 5 other people, which is something I experienced once and had a great time.
For longer, more involved campaigns? I need a system with at least a bit of crunch to it.

 

[jdrakeh]

Rules-light is too light when:

• no one's sure what the ruling should be (because it's not in the book).

One of the very basic premises of rules-light RPGs is (as often quoted) "rulings, not rules". What you want are rules (explicit answers to things that may arise during play) as opposed to rulings (judgement calls made by the referee). They're two different things.

 

[GMMichael]

One of the very basic premises of rule-light RPGs is (as often quoted) "rulings, not rules". What you want are rules (explicit answers to things that may arise during play) as opposed to rulings (judgement calls made by the referee). They're two different things.

Color me confused. I thought "rulings, not rules" was WotC's mantra for 5e - a decidedly not rules-light game. And aren't rulings supposed to be based on rules? Otherwise, they'd just be fiats.

 

[jdrakeh]

Color me confused. I thought "rulings, not rules" was WotC's mantra for 5e - a decidedly not rules-light game. And aren't rulings supposed to be based on rules? Otherwise, they'd just be fiats.

"Rulings, not rules" has been the mantra of the OSR before D&D5e was even conceived. And for rules-light games in general for years before that. Rulings may be based on rules, but not necessarily. As anybody who has played older editions of D&D (OD&D, B/X, BECMI and even AD&D pre-DMG) can tell you, rulings are just as often filling in for instances in which case-specific written rules do not exist. Rulings are judgement calls made by the referee (either based on rules or just best estimation), whereas rules are explicitly written answers. They are, again, two different things.

 

[FrogReaver]

Rules-light is too light when:

• the players are telling the GM what to do / characters are godlike
• one PC hogs the spotlight because the rules don't limit
• no one's sure what the ruling should be (because it's not in the book).

I never realized d&d was rules light

 

[jdrakeh]

I never realized d&d was rules light

Some editions certainly are.