Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[Golden age Superhero]

So, in another post I mentioned a gaming group that didn't come back to my table because I mentioned that I preferred lighter systems to crunch. In our discussion via text this came up:

Less rules = less consistency. There's more opportunity for conflict arguing about how something's been handled. More rules gives a black and white picture of what to expect. This group is built on knowing what to expect, and making our decisions based on what we know, and we can only do that because of the heavily imposed rules and ability to find a ruling for anything.

So the philosophy of rules heavy games is that it is better to have everything, or at least most things defined. It's best to have everything about what my character can do clearly defined on my character sheet. While the understanding of a rules light system is that less rules mean more of a chance to think outside your character sheet. If the rules favor just a basic rules like Old School Essentials, or my favorite Castles and Crusades and the rest will be up to the DM to adjudicate.

So in summation, crunching systems better define what you can with a clearly defined rules set. While a lighter system is more up to GM fiat which fans of crunchy game really don't like. At least that is how I perceive it.

What do you think?

 

[MNblockhead]

I like diverse gameplay experiences and generally find I can enjoy any game with an enthusiastic GM and fun fellow-players. I'm not sure about more crunch leading to more consistency. Too late and too tired to think through it, but in my experience, overly crunchy games tend to get to a point where the amount of rules make it hard to be consistent. I think the clarity and symmetry is more important than the amount of rules. Also, in some games consistency is not as important.

If there is trust between the players and DM, I think any session or campaign can weather a bit of inconsistency.

 

[Theory of Games]

So, in another post I mentioned a gaming group that didn't come back to my table because I mentioned that I preferred lighter systems to crunch. In our discussion via text this came up:

Less rules = less consistency. There's more opportunity for conflict arguing about how something's been handled. More rules gives a black and white picture of what to expect. This group is built on knowing what to expect, and making our decisions based on what we know, and we can only do that because of the heavily imposed rules and ability to find a ruling for anything.

So the philosophy of rules heavy games is that it is better to have everything, or at least most things defined. It's best to have everything about what my character can do clearly defined on my character sheet. While the understanding of a rules light system is that less rules mean more of a chance to think outside your character sheet. If the rules favor just a basic rules like Old School Essentials, or my favorite Castles and Crusades and the rest will be up to the DM to adjudicate.

So in summation, crunching systems better define what you can with a clearly defined rules set. While a lighter system is more up to GM fiat which fans of crunchy game really don't like. At least that is how I perceive it.

What do you think?

Agreed.

Some groups want rules for underwater knife fights, some groups just use narrative improvisation for underwater knife fights. It's about what's most fun for the group. Neither system is bad but what often happens is a group chooses the wrong system and problems emerge.

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't think crunch better defines things, it just provides specific mechanical support for more things. You might argue that provides some indexing as to what kinds of activities the designer expects to be germane to the setting and genre, but that's not the same as what's possible. I also think that GM fiat is a loaded term there almost purpose chosen to give a particular kind of player the vapours. Rules light games don't proceed based on GM whim, but rather on the logic of the fiction and usually by consensus in some fashion. Consistent rulings and consistency generally are necessary for both kinds of games.

 

[PrunellaUK]

Rules light systems means players and their imaginations are unbounded by the rules. Rules heavy systems confine the players and restrict not only what they can do, but confine their imaginations to a narrow list of options.

 

[Aldarc]

Rules light systems means players and their imaginations are unbounded by the rules. Rules heavy systems confine the players and restrict not only what they can do, but confine their imaginations to a narrow list of options.

This comes across as incredibly belittling and insulting to rules heavy systems and the imaginations of people who enjoy them, so I am going to hard disagree on this one.

 

[Committed Hero]

Less rules = less consistency.

That's relying on heavily on the hope that the designers are consistent! I'd say that, to reframe it a bit, more rules provide more predictability. They give players a better idea of what their characters are capable of, and how often they might succeed at it.

Of course, that also depends on whether the rules assert what a PC can do, or whether they circumscribe what a player can do (I'm not taking a stand on either side; there are arguments for both). It's probably safe to say that, in general, the former view meshes better with heavier games, and the latter with lighter ones.

 

[PrunellaUK]

This comes across as incredibly belittling and insulting to rules heavy systems and the imaginations of people who enjoy them, so I am going to hard disagree on this one.

Well, I found 'Less rules = less consistency' to be highly disagreeable too.

That said, I've found, from lived experience, that removing the shackles of rules from the players can be liberating. I've seen recognition dawn on players' faces that they can do so much more than rules sets allow, and had them go from being players to active collaborators in the storytelling, helping shape the narrative at a fundamental level. It's really quite something to see.

 

[Fenris-77]

Most rules heavy games have exactly the same ability to allow players to attempt most anything as rules light games do (i.e there is a fairly robust basic task and adjudication mechanic), but I find in practice that doesn't happen. The more rules a game has the more likely it is, IMO anyway, that players, especially newer players, will consult that list of rules to see what they can do and don't always think past that.

I'd agree that sometimes a player's first crack at a rules light game can be revelatory. I've seen that same light in their eyes. The difference I think is how up-front the idea of 'try anything' is in the rules.

 

[Aldarc]

Well, I found 'Less rules = less consistency' to be highly disagreeable too.

Well guess what? That's not something that I ever stated in this thread.

That said, I've found, from lived experience, that removing the shackles of rules from the players can be liberating. I've seen recognition dawn on players' faces that they can do so much more than rules sets allow, and had them go from being players to active collaborators in the storytelling, helping shape the narrative at a fundamental level. It's really quite something to see.

Doubling down on negatively-framed language like "shackles of rules" doesn't make me any more amenable to viewing your position as any less insulting.