When is Rules Lite Too Lite?

Because it often is - but it does require the recipient to not be too hung up on the details, and instead look at the general form.

No two readers will agree to the general form or what is relevant. That's a failure of empathy to assume that an analogy obvious to you would be obvious to all. What you call "hung up on the details" is just someone looking at it from a different angle than you were looking at it.

A one-to-one relationship is hardly required in this case.

Of course it is, otherwise the analogy adds confusion rather than clarity. My relationship to my spouse isn't the same as my relationship to a rules set.

It wasn't intended to.

I think most readers did, or will, get my point.

That you poisoned the well by introducing a false analogy? Maybe.

My apologies if it is opaque to you, but it wasn't written for you, personally.

It wasn't written for who you were responding to either.

Your post would have been clearer if you just responded with the relevant critique:

""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."

Only that critique is itself uncharitable. Yes, his observation is pretty trite so far as it goes, but it never claimed to be diagnostic. And the last sentence is nakedly wrong on the face of it, since he said "You can change "light" to any other descriptive word, too.", so objectively he did admit to problems arising from things other than rules.
 

log in or register to remove this ad







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.
If it is a one shot, you can even omit dice or rules, but you need very good role players for this. If you consider D&D to complicated use Call of Cuthullu or Delta Green rules or any other D100 system. These are designed to support narrative role play play-style. Of course you cannot develop the mechanics of your character that versatile like you could with D&D.

Symbaroum is an in between, most development comes from skills, less from equipment, the characters are still really squishy, but if you got a character with well developed skills, he somehow is much stronger and can take some in combat. An additional advantage is, that the DM does almost do no dice rolls at all. e.g. the players rule to evade being hit, and how much damage they absorb, the damage output of mobs can be a fix number (I seen the latter in D&D, and i think the MM got rules for that one).

Maybe you should reduce optional rules in your D&D game. You can play without feats, use the rule that mobs do fixed damage, limit the number of weird subclasses and races, limit resources to the pnb and so on.

Believably roleplaying a human, halfelf, halfling or gnome or maybe still dwarf and halforc also is much much easier than roleplaying an elf, drow, dragonborn, tiefling and such. To play these races proper it is not enough to just view them as a human with some cool optic skin, they are weirdly different, not only physical but from their mindset, either because of their heritage, or because of their longevity, or because they got many aspects of a reptile.
 

I don't think in some cases they aren't supposed to be a meal. Its just their proponents consider most of the important elements of a game exterior to the system elements. They consider those minimal needs to resolve success and failure in a way that relates to the characters (in whatever fashion and to whatever degree is imprortant) and otherwise to be minimized as they aren't what they think the game is about.
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.
 

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 tools to resolve tests.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top