When is Rules Lite Too Lite?

[Maxperson]

No, rulings not rules is an OSR mantra that came out long before 5e was released.

That doesn't change that rulings, not rules is also the mantra for 5e. 5e may not have originated the term, but it uses it.

 

[Agamon]

This sounds like the (highly flawed) idea that if your relationship with your spouse is not working, adding another person (like having a kid, or an affair) is going to help.

Game broken, add more rules?



"The rules are too <foo> when someone playing it is not enjoying it," is non-diagnostic, though. And it also fails to admit to problems arising from anything other than rules.

This seems to imply that, "if too rules lite, add rules", but I'm more, "if too rules lite, play something else".

 

[Deset Gled]

I guess I would ask, when we are playing, are we paying more attention to the rules, or to the adventure? The best systems imo, are ones that stay out of the way and push roleplaying and the adventure to the forefront. Things like "leveling up" or applying experience can be done after the session as bookkeeping. A system that is "too heavy" is intrusive, shouts "me me me!" and gets in the way. One that is "too light" doesn't give enough easy ways to resolve tests.

But isn't this often tied more into the level of system mastery the players have, rather than just rules complexity?

Even the most complex and crunchy system can still promote roleplaying and adventure, they may simply demand a higher level of rules familiarity to get to that point. Conversely, even lighter systems get bogged down if the PCs don't bother to learn the rules and one person has to drag everyone through every encounter one step at a time.

People knock on 3.5e for being overly complex (and it was). But when it was current I played plenty of games that went just as smoothly as many 5e game that I've played. The difference is in the learning curve, not the roleplaying and adventure.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I guess that's true that they could be targeting being a "meal", but I think they still get the same visceral reaction as from my wife when she's watching gourmet cooking shows and they spend an hour to create one exquisite thinly cut piece of Wagyu beef on a bruschetta --- "that looks nice, but where's the rest of it?" I'll definitely enjoy the lean game and the small appetizer, but it (the lean game rule system) is not going to last with me for long if it doesn't have something for me to come back to, rather than just being the scaffolding for presenting a game topic.

Well, I'm too much of a chocolate-AND-peanut butter guy when it comes to RPGs (which is to say I consider the game and roleplaying part equally important) to be able to want an RPG that doesn't provide pretty good game engagement, and I've yet to see a lightweight RPG that does that (or in most cases, to be fair, is even trying to).

But I try to at least understand the position of people who are happy with lightweight RPGs, and at least in the majority of cases its because the game element is distinctly the minority part of their interest.

 

[Wolfpack48]

But isn't this often tied more into the level of system mastery the players have, rather than just rules complexity?

Even the most complex and crunchy system can still promote roleplaying and adventure, they may simply demand a higher level of rules familiarity to get to that point. Conversely, even lighter systems get bogged down if the PCs don't bother to learn the rules and one person has to drag everyone through every encounter one step at a time.

People knock on 3.5e for being overly complex (and it was). But when it was current I played plenty of games that went just as smoothly as many 5e game that I've played. The difference is in the learning curve, not the roleplaying and adventure.

Sure. If everyone at the table is well familiar with and likes a system, even a complicated one, that system becomes easy and fades into the background because everyone has done their homework. You've got agreement on what "out of the way" means. It really does come down to the learning curve for new players then. If a newbie comes to the table, what is their learning curve and tolerance for complexity? Will the terminology turn them on or off?

So match your tolerance for heaviness/complexity/funky terms with a system, find your sweet spot, and hope enough other players are on board with you to get things going.

 

[Autumnal]

Or people are familiar with it and it doesn’t fade into the background; they comfortably balance system and other concerns. Not everyone wants the system to move out of the foreground - they like the system and like paying attention to it along with whatever else is goi bc on.

It’s taken decades of my listening to/watching more system-enthusiastic friends talk about these things for me to realize it, but I have a mild version of it myself. I actively like mechanical aspects of various rules systems. If too few of them are present, I tend to think, well, why don’t I just imagine writing a story, a thing I also like doing but definitely not the same thing. I’m not enthusiastic about most system elements that make someone like Thomas Shey, Rob Donoghue, or Levi Kornelson happy, but the ones that I am enthusiastic about do give me the same happiness.

All this as distinct from someone who really prefers not to think about system and all and gets no particular from frisson from using anymore the mechanics any more than I thrill to, say, washing my hands. Clean hands are good but the process doesn’t interest me. Same deal.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Or people are familiar with it and it doesn’t fade into the background; they comfortably balance system and other concerns. Not everyone wants the system to move out of the foreground - they like the system and like paying attention to it along with whatever else is goi bc on.

It’s taken decades of my listening to/watching more system-enthusiastic friends talk about these things for me to realize it, but I have a mild version of it myself. I actively like mechanical aspects of various rules systems. If too few of them are present, I tend to think, well, why don’t I just imagine writing a story, a thing I also like doing but definitely not the same thing. I’m not enthusiastic about most system elements that make someone like Thomas Shey, Rob Donoghue, or Levi Kornelson happy, but the ones that I am enthusiastic about do give me the same happiness.

All this as distinct from someone who really prefers not to think about system and all and gets no particular from frisson from using anymore the mechanics any more than I thrill to, say, washing my hands. Clean hands are good but the process doesn’t interest me. Same deal.

For me, "fade into the background" = not needing to flip through rulebooks every time you want to do something.

 

[Autumnal]

That’s pretty reasonable.

 

[bsss]

Right, I like it when a system is actively present and helping complete some part of the gameplay part of the process in a meaningful way. If it becomes known like the back of our hand and yet still contributes to the experience, that's golden. On that point:

Well, I'm too much of a chocolate-AND-peanut butter guy when it comes to RPGs (which is to say I consider the game and roleplaying part equally important) to be able to want an RPG that doesn't provide pretty good game engagement, and I've yet to see a lightweight RPG that does that (or in most cases, to be fair, is even trying to).

But I try to at least understand the position of people who are happy with lightweight RPGs, and at least in the majority of cases its because the game element is distinctly the minority part of their interest.

That is certainly fine, I don't discredit their position nor do I think I'm speaking for the hobby holistically or anything, but I'm not interested in the rules elements themselves if they are in the minority or threadbare or ephemeral or however I tend to think about it. I'm currently enjoying a Cthulhu Dark game a lot overall, because I like the topic of the game, but I'm not going to tell anyone that the rules themselves are particularly engaging --- they're a clever quickness but otherwise barely there --- they solve the "get out of the way" part just fine though.

 

[Xamnam]

John Harper did a similar game called 50/50 with slightly more rules than that. It's about two-pages long. I can't seem to find a link.

Here you go.

If folks don't want to click through, here are the full rules:

When your character takes a risk and you're not sure which outcome should occur, do the following:

• Consider the situation at hand and how its details interface with the capabilities of the character.
• Take a coin. Think of a best outcome and assign it to 'heads'. Think of a worst outcome and assign it to 'tails'. Flip the coin.
• Describe the outcome, based on the result of the coin flip.

That said, worth reading for how it argues fictional positioning.