Is it possible that in reality...

1. rules-lite games, though people enjoy them for one-shots and think they love them, can fall a bit short for campaign play?

[NB many people may have their primary experience of roleplaying from one-shots and short campaigns. These occasional gamers and chop-and-changers may spread their support around lots of minor games, but they're not going to sustain the commercial success of a major game with lots of supplements.]

[It may be that every so often people look for mechanical variety to spice up a game that may have run out of thematic variety.]

2. the sorts of people who really go for rules-lite games are less likely, as a very general tendency and subject to individual exceptions, to sustain long campaigns?

[This could be something to do with attention-spans.]

And thus...

3. Rules-lite games will be used for very few long-term campaigns even if / even though rules-lite games designed for campaigns are available?

With many commercial games, game designers' love of fiddling leads them to want to create overly complex systems  - we're like tinker gnomes, basically. (In some cases, D&D 5E for instance, complexities looks less like commercially-driven overcomplexification and more like they've given in to their desire to try out all their weird ideas)...

Fortunately its not quite as simple as thicker rulebook = more complexity at the table. Rules vary considerably in how 'invasive' they are. For instance:

*an 'edge case' rule (most of the rules in older D&Ds, perhaps) is applicable only to a few situations and so doesn't usually add to complexity at the table, only in that situation.  

*A few trad RPGs have complex rulesets but can be simpler or freeform out  of combat. i.e. with Palladium, combat system is more complex but out  of combat, there aren't many rules, apart from skill use, with skills being fairly narrowly defined. Players don't have to roll Perception Checks or social interaction checks.

*player-side vs. GM-side. Perception checks that the GM rolls don't  bother the players, at least, even if there is a complex system there.

*a set of rules that's well-designed and common-sensical can look a lot like a common sense ruling would; in cases like this you may not don't need to actually look up the rule because you know (as GM) it will jive with your expectations.

I'm not sure if this is related exactly, but I was struck by Rob Kuntz'  description of how Climb worked in primordial D&D on his blog here.  He's very much an advocate of free-form systems using player skill but a  good part of his exposition to the GM on how he's climbing, would  actually still give him bonuses even in 3E - the 'I take off my armour  before climbing and attach a rope to pull it up' for instance removes the armour  check penalty while letting you keep your armour (I could imagine a good 3E GM giving him a circumstance  bonus for explaining well how to climb the escarpment, too).

A few  times playing 3E I've seen the GM make a ruling I hadn't known was a rule, and found out later it was in the rulebook, just somewhere obscure (slings needing a move action to reload, for instance).

Quote from: Omnifray;615661Is it possible that in reality...

1. rules-lite games, though people enjoy them for one-shots and think they love them, can fall a bit short for campaign play?

No.

Quote from: Omnifray;6156612. the sorts of people who really go for rules-lite games are less likely, as a very general tendency and subject to individual exceptions, to sustain long campaigns?

Maybe.

Quote from: Omnifray;615661This could be something to do with attention-spans.]

Fuck off.

Quote from: Omnifray;615661And thus...

3. Rules-lite games will be used for very few long-term campaigns even if / even though rules-lite games designed for campaigns are available?

No.

Quote from: soviet;616038Fuck off.

Succinct and to the point, but I did actually raise this online as a serious and non-hostile point, and get a serious reply from a hardcore storygamer, some time in the last couple of years or so.

I'm very definitely not suggesting that *all* storygamers, or *all* people who prefer rules-lite games, or *all* people who prefer shorter games have these preferences because they have shorter attention-spans. And I suppose even insofar as attention-something-or-other plays a role, really it's not so much about attention-span as it is about attention-preference. But I think it's pretty much a given that someone with a very short attention span will have an easier time of it with a rules-lite game designed for a short one-shot than they will with a crunchy game designed for campaign play. Such gamers may, of course, only account for a very small proportion of gamers, and a very small proportion of storygamers, but I'd suggest that they'd be more likely to choose rules-lite storygames designed for one-shots than other gamers would. And the longer your attention span, the less likely that is to be a factor for you, as a very, very, *very* general tendency.

Of course, as a counterargument I suppose you only find storygames in those obscure corners of the hobby that people only reach if they're fairly dedicated which suggests they won't have short attention spans.

But those people may introduce the games to their short-attention-spanned friends...

Quote from: Omnifray;616066Succinct and to the point, but I did actually raise this online as a serious and non-hostile point, and get a serious reply from a hardcore storygamer, some time in the last couple of years or so.

I'm very definitely not suggesting that *all* storygamers, or *all* people who prefer rules-lite games, or *all* people who prefer shorter games have these preferences because they have shorter attention-spans. And I suppose even insofar as attention-something-or-other plays a role, really it's not so much about attention-span as it is about attention-preference. But I think it's pretty much a given that someone with a very short attention span will have an easier time of it with a rules-lite game designed for a short one-shot than they will with a crunchy game designed for campaign play. Such gamers may, of course, only account for a very small proportion of gamers, and a very small proportion of storygamers, but I'd suggest that they'd be more likely to choose rules-lite storygames designed for one-shots than other gamers would. And the longer your attention span, the less likely that is to be a factor for you, as a very, very, *very* general tendency.

Of course, as a counterargument I suppose you only find storygames in those obscure corners of the hobby that people only reach if they're fairly dedicated which suggests they won't have short attention spans.

But those people may introduce the games to their short-attention-spanned friends...

I guess it's logical that people with short attention spans would prefer lighter systems, but then I'm not sure that those people are particularly drawn to the hobby in the first place.

In my group we play a variety of games. We alternate between three main games as we like to rotate GMs every 3-4 months (about 15 sessions) to keep things fresh. Our main games are D&D 4e and Other Worlds, although last year we did a run of AD&D 2e. The 4e runs are part of a longer campaign (started in 1991 under 2e!) while the Other Worlds and recent AD&D 2e runs are standalone campaigns with definite end points. Other Worlds is very rules light, AD&D 2e sort of is, at least when compared to 3e or 4e.

Occasionally we'll run a couple of sessions of something else if a particular person can't make it or one of the GMs needs time to prepare. These are sometimes rules light games like Og or Elfs, and other times they've been stuff like WFRP2e, Shadowrun, and D&D Next. (I'm gonna do MERP at some point!)

Maybe we're not a group that prioritises in-character immersion as much as you do but we all feel pretty engaged and immersed in our games. I haven't seen a difference in that based on the density of the rules set.

Quote from: Omnifray;615661Is it possible that in reality...

1. rules-lite games, though people enjoy them for one-shots and think they love them, can fall a bit short for campaign play?

[NB many people may have their primary experience of roleplaying from one-shots and short campaigns. These occasional gamers and chop-and-changers may spread their support around lots of minor games, but they're not going to sustain the commercial success of a major game with lots of supplements.]

[It may be that every so often people look for mechanical variety to spice up a game that may have run out of thematic variety.]

2. the sorts of people who really go for rules-lite games are less likely, as a very general tendency and subject to individual exceptions, to sustain long campaigns?

[This could be something to do with attention-spans.]

And thus...

3. Rules-lite games will be used for very few long-term campaigns even if / even though rules-lite games designed for campaigns are available?

I think you need to define what "rules light" is. These days it generally seems to be used only to refer to super-light edge case games like Wushu and Everway, but personally I'd take the view that any of the old TSR games which clocked in at under 64 pages in the box are "rules light" by any reasonable measure. So that means things like Basic D&D and Marvel Super-Heroes, which I think definitely were used for long-term campaigns.

Quote from: Grymbok;616107I think you need to define what "rules light" is. These days it generally seems to be used only to refer to super-light edge case games like Wushu and Everway, but personally I'd take the view that any of the old TSR games which clocked in at under 64 pages in the box are "rules light" by any reasonable measure. So that means things like Basic D&D and Marvel Super-Heroes, which I think definitely were used for long-term campaigns.

I would agree. I have had plenty pf long term campaigns using systems I would label as rules light.

Nah, BECMI was pretty damn complex if you included all the bits and pieces.

I think for "rules-light" you're probably talking something like 6 or fewer stats for a starting character, not counting equipment.

BECMI has 6 ability scores, but also HP, AC, hit rolls (THAC0? or was that AD&D 2e only), saving throws, level, experience points, spells per day, thief percentage chances etc. And then tons and tons of spells.

Not super-crunchy, but definitely not rules-lite.

Quote from: Omnifray;616115Nah, BECMI was pretty damn complex if you included all the bits and pieces.

I think for "rules-light" you're probably talking something like 6 or fewer stats for a starting character, not counting equipment.

BECMI has 6 ability scores, but also HP, AC, hit rolls (THAC0? or was that AD&D 2e only), saving throws, level, experience points, spells per day, thief percentage chances etc. And then tons and tons of spells.

Not super-crunchy, but definitely not rules-lite.

I said Basic, not all of BECMI

Anyway, if you think a game for which all of the rules can be contained in about 32 pages isn't rules light, then yes, by your definition, "rules light" is an outlying taste, which probably makes up less than 1% of all RPGs.

For clarity I'm referring here to MSH, which had a 20 page player's guide. I'm aware that Basic D&D (c1983) was a 64pg rulebook, and lacking a copy I'm not going to start debating the precise page count of "rules" in that example.

Quote from: Omnifray;616115Nah, BECMI was pretty damn complex if you included all the bits and pieces.

I think for "rules-light" you're probably talking something like 6 or fewer stats for a starting character, not counting equipment.

BECMI has 6 ability scores, but also HP, AC, hit rolls (THAC0? or was that AD&D 2e only), saving throws, level, experience points, spells per day, thief percentage chances etc. And then tons and tons of spells.

Not super-crunchy, but definitely not rules-lite.

To me six stats (including stuff like skills, and to hit rolls) or less isn't rules-light, it's minimalist design. I consider basic, Dr. Who: adventures in time and space, savage worlds, and my own games rules light. All have a bit of meat, but still light in my book.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;614044Well, the only surprises for me here was that "making it all up as we go along" was only 16%.

Alot of Heavy Character Immersion players, like myself, are also very comfortable with improv, as long as the result still has versilimitude.

Quotebeing railroaded (or feeling that I'm being railroaded)

If I know up front the GM is running a canned adventure on rails, I can usually accept that. If he's using Illusionism and I get a peek behind the curtain, then this ruins Immersion for me and as I find the illusion of choice to be very problematic on several levels.

Quotemechanics I personally find excessively complicated

Yes, any time I am spending time thinking about something that is external to my character, Immersion is threatened. The longer I have to think about it, the more threatened Immersion becomes. Systems I personally find excessively complicated will require higher personal handling time, and thus will cause more problems for me with Immersion.

Quotewhen what happens in the game isn't believable

This is key. If we lose versilimitude, I can't believe that anything is "real", so I can't immerse, unless there's a chance my character is hallucinating or experiencing an illusion; if that proves not to be the case, the game grinds to a full stop for me.

Quotefeeling that we're all just making it all up as we go along

I consider many of the skills involved in Improve to similarly be many of the skills in effectively immersing, so I'm fine with improv as a game vehicle for Immersion.

Quoterules making me make decisions that are nothing like any decisions my character would be making

This is a complete non-starter for me. This is the one sin that a ruleset can commit that I cannot forgive nor abide.

Quotebeing expected to decide things my character would have no control over or no way of affecting

It depends on how formal this is. If I'm expected to do huge chunks of world-building or narration, then yeah, that's a problem. If I'm expected to assume that some of a bar's patrons are drinking from mugs without being explicitly told this fact, then I'm ok with that, as my imagination fills in alot of the white space like that automatically.

Quoterules dictating my PC's normal reactions (hardcore social conflict / personality mechanics)

Yeah. That.

Quotemetagame incentives for my PC to behave/react a certain way / ALL personality mechanics for PCs

It depends on what we mean by metagame incentives. I don't care about XP or other reward incentives, I do what my character would do without any regard for what is "rewarded", as I believe that rewards are the purview of the GM not the game system and figure it will all work itself out in the end. So these sorts of rules do nothing to influence my decisions.

But if I was required to act a certain way or receive a de-facto in game penalty because I didn't click the right pixel or jump through the right hoop in a way that's totally disassociated from the game fiction, then I have a problem with that.

Quotewhen there's not enough of a chance for speaking in character

This one is HUGE. I find it very hard to Immerse unless we all spend the majority of our time speaking in character.

Quotea poor/incomplete character concept, not enough info on my PC, or the wrong PC for me

Yeah, can't immerse in a character I don't care about. I don't have to LIKE them, as a person - I regularly have played characters I personally dislike as people but love as a character - but if they don't at least interest me, I've got nothing to work with.

Quote from: Grymbok;616107I think you need to define what "rules light" is.

I think there are two concepts that often get confounded together in these discussions. One is rules volume, i.e. light or heavy, which suggests the number of rules involved. A single unified mechanic with few or no edge cases that can be summarized on a single sheet of paper is rules light; a system with a separate mechanical subsystem and special mechanics for virtually every action would be rules heavy. This is something we could probably make an objective scale for by counting the number of rules, the number of situational rules or edge cases, and the number of subsystems.

Then there is rules complexity, which is a very different thing. If the only rule in the game was you had to solve a differential equation to resolve any action, I think that would be considered complex by most people, but as a ruleset goes, it's pretty light. However, this measurement is going to be largely subjective, and this is where I think most of the arguments about system weight come from: people label games they find easy to intuit as "rules lite" and ones they don't like or find complex to be "rules heavy" and different people have different games they rate in this way, and then no one can agree on what's what. This axis is more along the lines of ease of play. It's largely an aesthetic value, and while aesthetics can be judged on some level objectively, they are largely subjective experiences.

Add to this that sometimes when people talk about "rules lite" they mean the first thing, rule volume, and sometimes the second, rule complexity. This is why no one can agree on what these terms mean.

This is not even taking into account people who use these terms to indicate aesthetic preferences; i.e. "Rules Lite" to mean "I like this game".

Quote from: Doctor Jest;616137[Re:- rules making me make decisions that my character wouldn't make]
This is a complete non-starter for me. This is the one sin that a ruleset can commit that I cannot forgive nor abide.

Can you give examples?

Cheers

Quote from: Omnifray;616176Can you give examples?

Anything involving narrative control is a big one; if I, as a player, am making decisions about what happens in the game world (the purview of the GM) then unless my character has godlike powers to be able to shape the world to their whims, it's Immersion breaking.