# The Dilemma of the Simple RPG



## TheSwartz (Apr 30, 2017)

I've seen plenty of RPGs "on a single page", or similar simple mechanics. So, I think that's out there.

But, then, I think you allude to the fact that the money for developers lies in producing more product for people to buy.

And then, there are people (like probably everyone reading this) who like to get into lots of details and are willing to buy those products.


----------



## Koloth (Apr 30, 2017)

The first version of D&D had a very limited number of characters(fighting men, magic users, and clerics) and races(Dwarves, Elves, Hobbits and Human).  Men and Magic, the equivalent of the later PHB, has all of 34 pages in a 5x7 format.  Later versions added more races and class options.  Then feats and skills.  And more spells.  More stuff = more pages = more complexity.  And complexity is rarely linear with page count.  Yet that is what a lot of players wanted.  The early Dragon magazines often featured a new unofficial class or class subtype.  Many of those are now considered basic character classes today.  Of course, today's PHB often has page counts in the hundreds and the pages are much larger then the original game.  

Game rules aren't the only thing that have grown more complex.  Early players often ran through one or two session modules that might grant one level at the end.  Today, large lvl 1 to 20 adventure paths rule, often spanning multiple books.  Woe to the group that decides at level 3 that they really don't like the adventure path they are running in.  But they seem to be what the majority of the player and GMs want.


----------



## dave2008 (Apr 30, 2017)

This has not really been my experience.  I started 4e and 5e with just playing (My start with 1e over 20 yrs ago was different).  We used some pregenerated characters and the very basics of how to play and just started playing.  We were playing in like 15 min. max.  I even did this for one of my sons birthdays.  I let 6 boys pick from a stack of pregenerated characters, gave them the 15 min. overview and took them through a 2 hour adventure.  I even printed a giant map (approx. 5' x 8' I think) that I tapped to the floor.

I guess my point is, just because a game has complex rules doesn't mean it has to be played complexly.  I like D&D because I am familiar with it enough that I can play it by the seat-of-my-pants and then, if I need or want it, there is some more complexity to access.


----------



## ArchfiendBobbie (Apr 30, 2017)

I think, increasingly, people are getting the idea that simplicity is a good thing... and publishers are going to have to accept that diversification is their ticket to success.

This isn't the days of 1E, 2E, or 3E where you can build a system that requires its own library just to house the books and expect to make a lot of money. The systems that still do that tend not to do as well as a result. Some games can get away with it, but they still don't see as much popularity as in the past by a long shot.

I think we've hit the era where games like Savage Worlds will be the book-heavy games.


----------



## J.L. Duncan (Apr 30, 2017)

This is a good article. I disagree. 

Crunchy or basic are different ideas. There is room for either, if they achieve something unique.  

Some might agree with Einstein, but in regards to design... "Everything, should be as simple as possible, not simpler?" (BTW: I always thought Einstein was making a pun with that, the idea that if your original concept could be made simpler, then it was faulty to begin with) This is not measurable in my experience of human nature and even the artisan (more often than not) has a very complex process (and/or experience), to arrive at simplicity. Money does talk, so what you cannot do, is throw a group of new players into a session of Pathfinder and expect clean sessions from day one. 

A GMs job is as hard as he/she makes it. A GM that knows this, is worth their weight in gold! Bringing a new group of players to a RPG which is crunchy (and applying that crunch to the letter) is the fault of the GM, not the system.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 30, 2017)

I can see his point, but, there are a few additional issues.  There is a trade off.  A rules heavy game has this big, steep learning curve at the outset, but, at the table is often MUCH easier to run.  Because the DM/GM can rely on the rules to a large degree to give answers and resolve situations, the mental load on the DM to make the game run smoothly is much lower.

OTOH, rules light games, while significantly easier in the sense that you can learn the game in a much shorter period of time, are often much, much more difficult to run at the table and the experience will vary much more because of the DM.  

IOW, a more extensive ruleset, run by an average DM will give a better result than a less extensive ruleset run by the same DM.  The less extensive ruleset doesn't allow the DM to rely on the system, and makes it that much easier for the DM to make mistakes.

I'd argue that the Rules Light games are less DM friendly than the rules heavy ones.  Sure, you can learn the game faster, but, because so much of the game relies on you, the DM, to make it run at the table, rules light games force DM's to play amateur game designer at the same time as they are trying to run the game.

Think of it this way.  Which would more likely to be an enjoyable 3 hour session - a 3 hour 5e session with a completely new DM running some module, or a 3 hour session of Dread with a completely new DM?  Yup, that Dread game might be fun.  It might also be absolutely horrible.  Presuming our 5e DM actually follows the rules to a reasonable degree, it's unlikely that his game will go completely wahoonie shaped.


----------



## Rygar (Apr 30, 2017)

I disagree with the article.

First, for some number of players (New and old) more rules are much better than fewer rules.  Fewer rules begat arguments at the table about how a thing or things are supposed to work, which invariably leads to the end of games.  No one wants to play a game where every action takes ten minutes of arguing to agree on how something works.

Second, the article seems to suppose that one must purchase every rule book that's released.  A group need not purchase anything other than the core books for an RPG and they can be happy forever.  

Third, rule books aren't the only income generator, nor are they the optimal one.  The optimal income generator is in Adventures.  GM'ing becomes a heck'uva lot easier when all you have to do is read a few dozen pages instead of writing a few dozen pages.  It lets time-limited people play the game, it lets imagination-challenged people play the game, it grows the customer base.  Which is why WOTC's decision to axe Dungeon magazine and go with a digital platform that will have very limited penetration is extremely confusing, they basically shot their growth curve in the foot.  

Simple RPG's aren't a magic bullet.  RPG's that don't generate ambiguity and have ample ready to use material are a magic bullet.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 30, 2017)

Heh, I agree [MENTION=6756765]Rygar[/MENTION].  I think both Paizo (first) and now WotC have proven that there is certainly money to be made in adventures.  That we don't really need the endless splat churn that we saw for many, many years.

Heck, considering that three years after its release (about), the 5e PHB is sitting at number 33 O.O on Amazon in Books.  Not in niche, but in all books.  That's AMAZING.  

It really does look like WotC has hit the magic bullet this time around.


----------



## R_Chance (Apr 30, 2017)

I'd say a simple game is more DM dependent. A good DM makes for a good game in this case. Crunchy games take some of the load off a DM -- to a point. Past a certain sweet spot of rules adequate to cover most situations the additional rules become a burden with unforeseen interactions and too numerous options bogging the game down. Moderation is a good thing  

A game with an extensible set of rules that can cover unplanned for events is good. Not a rule for every specific situation, but rules that can cover many situations. When rules try to account for too many specific things with rules suited to exactly that certain event they become unwieldy. Character options are no different. The proliferation of options for characters presents the same type of situation. Past a certain point it becomes problematic. Of course, everyone probably has a different opinion on where that point is...

As for money, as a publisher you can choose to sell more and more to a select audience or produce a product that appeals to a wider audience. Hopefully you manage both, growing the audience and deepening the game at the same time. If you keep the rules moderate in complexity you can expand your audience. And yes, adventures can certainly fill out the sales quota. Especially as more people play your game.

*sigh* Playing hooky. Back to grading papers and prep work...


----------



## Ratskinner (Apr 30, 2017)

hmm...I'm a little torn, but generally agree with the article. (Complex rules can be as much boon or bane for a GM, IME.) I've seen the mass of rules be an impediment for new players more often than otherwise. 

However, I'd also say that there is a certain art to writing a good set of minimalist or rules-light rules. Most of the rules-light games I've played or read have been poor because of a failure to recognize that art, trying instead to create a stripped-down version or combo of GURPS or D&D or whatever quasi-sim trad rpg mechanics they like best. (Often they seem to think that some rough general guidelines about setting DCs is enough to make a game!) The better rules-lite games manage to give the GM enough of a scaffold to respond to as well, if they even have a GM. Most importantly, they provide clarity of authority and result usually by leaning on the narrative "wrapper" of the story in a way that complex systems rarely do. I'd point to many PbtA games as evidence of this principle in action. There's a lot of "weirder" fringe games that manage this as well (Fiasco, Archipelago, etc.)


----------



## billd91 (Apr 30, 2017)

I think the article has a point but I don't think it's just the economics of the RPG producer pushing the complexity of a game. The players push it too and often the game company is the one responding to that demand. Among the most common house rules added to games like AD&D were critical hit tables and specific injuries, neither of which the game easily incorporates. Yet there they were - created by the players/DMs/fans of the game. As hobbyists, the players and GMs crave additional complexity, in mechanics or strategies or even both, and will add it themselves if the publisher doesn't do it.


----------



## martinlochsen (Apr 30, 2017)

I am having a hard time following the logic of this article. Perhaps I'm stupid and don't see what is obvious to others but there are a couple of things I don't understand.
First off, it's stated that there are more new players at events and clubs than there used to be, and less experienced players. Ok. That's fine. But... the reason for this is that rpg rules are too complex? I don't get it. How are those two things connected?
Next, this is put forth as an argument for simpler rules. Is many new players at clubs and events a bad thing? Doesn't that just mean that there's a lot of recruitment to the hobby, which would really be a good thing?
To sum up. There are mostly new players at events because rules are too complex. That's why the rules should be simpler, but they won't be because complex games are more popular and so make more money, and that's why the companies make the games complex.
I can't make sense of it.

EDIT: I get it now. I misread the first paragraph.


----------



## mflayermonk (Apr 30, 2017)

I think the new way is to sell you the same rules, but on different devices.
You have the Players Handbook in print, then you buy a Fantasy Grounds copy, then you pay $5 a month for a subscription.


----------



## mflayermonk (Apr 30, 2017)

martinlochsen said:


> Ok. That's fine. But... the reason for this is that rpg rules are too complex? I don't get it. How are those two things connected?




A steep learning curve keeps people from getting involved in your game, but to make money you need more rules, making your steep learning curve steeper. 

I guess its like Bowhunting.


----------



## martinlochsen (Apr 30, 2017)

Anyway, I have introduced lots of teenagers to the hobby over the last couple of years, and I really don't see the this learning curve barrier in real life. Most of these kids are instantly hooked when they give the game (5th ed D&D) a try, even though they don't understand all the rules at first. I really think that lack of exposure and competition with video games is the main reason the hobby might be less popular than it was (if that is indeed the case).
Also, seeing as WotC has purposely slowed down the rate of publishing new rules expansions for the latest addition, I think the argument that you need to publish a lot of such books to make money falls flat. I agree it probably has been a problem in the past, but it doesn't seem to be the direction the industry is heading in at the moment.
In addition, there are actually legitimate reasons for publishing new editions, such as keeping up with the times. As gaming trends change, games need to change with them or risk becoming obsolete and irrelevant. I think the idea that "new editions are just to make money" is a bit cynical.


----------



## Over the Hill Gamer (Apr 30, 2017)

I totally agree with this article.  A lot of RPG players and GMs enjoy more detail and complexity in their game system.  It makes it interesting and challenging for them. I think the author speaks to the experience of new and more casual players who "ain't up for all of that." Many game companies are happy to feed into the demand for more detail and options, especially because these players and GMs are their regular customers. Give the people what they want.  Unfortunately, that may sometimes push the "I ain't up for all of that" crowd away.  Refreshingly, WoTC seems to have adopted a new strategy -- instead of frenetically producing new stuff they prefer to maximize sales of fewer but well-researched (survey tested) products by building demand and anticipation of these releases. It's worked on me, I've bought every 5e release.  I would never have attempted that with 3e or 4e.  Still, I think there is room in the market for WoTC to produce a "simple as possible, but not simpler" version of 5e more geared towards casual or new players who just want to sit down and play.


----------



## mflayermonk (Apr 30, 2017)

Ratskinner said:


> The better rules-lite games manage to give the GM enough of a scaffold to respond to as well, if they even have a GM. Most importantly, they provide clarity of authority and result usually by leaning on the narrative "wrapper" of the story in a way that complex systems rarely do. I'd point to many PbtA games as evidence of this principle in action. There's a lot of "weirder" fringe games that manage this as well (Fiasco, Archipelago, etc.)



There are also the Robin Laws/Ken Hite games which are roll a d6 to decide most everything. The Dungeon World (PbtA) stuff is roll 2d6. Savage Worlds is also roll a few d6 for most everything. Those seem to be the type of games that break through for awards and sales these days. Crunchy systems seem to appeal to people that have already played them in the past, not the new players. 

Take for example Palladium games-its back, but its back with Savage Worlds rules. There probably aren't many new GMs for Palladium games. Whereas the less-crunch stuff with the scaffold can get picked up pretty quickly by new GMs. I've done it midgame, just straight told a new person you are now the GM and it worked perfectly fine.

If you look at D&D and Pathfinder-theres not a week on this forum when someone doesn't post "New DM, What Did I do Wrong?" Players I know that try DMing come up to me and ask me to sit in on their games and help them out. The players killed the monsters before the monsters could act. The players teleported to the boss in the first 5 minutes and killed him, and the game was over in 20 minutes. DM not knowing you can only cast a cantrip and a 1+ level spell in the same round. Honest and dishonest mistakes the DM didn't have the rules knowledge to catch. It is a steep learning curve.


----------



## JeffB (Apr 30, 2017)

It is hard to cater to casual players and hardcore players at the same time.

My players are casual. I started the group about 7 years ago when they were all 11-12 yo (my son and friends).. They are now young adults.  Even after all that time, they don't get into the books or rules minutiae. They don't get into backstories, or planning out mechanical crunch paths for their characters. They don't read thr books outside the table, and buy nothing. They treat rpgs like they do playing Monopoly, or Clue, etc. They have fun for a few hours and then off to whatever else is going on in their lives. Rules, complicated systems are an abomination to them. Ive gone that route with various systems and it always is backlash.. So I keep it simple and light for them. Otherwise they would rather play a videogame or watch a movie.

You cannot make any money on them. Yet they love playing and even after 7 years, we are still playing once or twice a month. Had a session yesterday. So how do you market to them? You rely on GMs and making their (my!) life easy. Complicated systems and limited gaming/prep time do not mix.

The people who live, eat and breathe gaming are a completely different kettle of fish, and are the ones who make you money... they crave more more more. 

It's a tough balancing act for a manufacturer, and how do you ensure longevity with what direction you go in? As a player and consumer, it's a completely different set of needs and wants.

This is the big issue with competing luxuries and decrease in free-time , compared to a few decades ago. 

At any rate, I think there are fewer diminishing returns with simplified systems and leaner business models. WOTC's success with 5e seems to be a good indicator- They are in much better shape with 5e than 3.0/3.5 at it's height with it's complicated rules and vomitous flow of official books which eventually drove consumers off to become their competition, or to other systems. 4e also failing to be a success because of WOTC being unable to figure out the  core D&D audience and how to engage lapsed and potential players (and fwiw- that is not a bash on 4e. I am a fan of it much moreso than 3rd or 5th editions).


----------



## aramis erak (Apr 30, 2017)

Hussar said:


> I'd argue that the Rules Light games are less DM friendly than the rules heavy ones.  Sure, you can learn the game faster, but, because so much of the game relies on you, the DM, to make it run at the table, rules light games force DM's to play amateur game designer at the same time as they are trying to run the game.




Yes... rules medium and rules heavy games do more to enforce setting and genre than do rules light games...

Rules light, there's less to get in the way, but also less to rely upon, and a far less consistent experience even with the same GM.


----------



## lewpuls (Apr 30, 2017)

Thanks for the comments. Keep in mind, folks, I am editorially constrained to 500 words. If I had a thousand, I’d have more thoroughly addressed/explained many of the points people are making or questioning (or explaining, thanks). Of course.


It would be interesting to know what proportion of, say, D&D revenue comes from additional rules, what proportion from settings, what proportion from adventures. I don’t know enough to say which is the “optimal” one, though one commenter thinks he/she knows. If, as another says, one of the 5e rulebooks is #33 seller on Amazon for all books, I suspect  the base rules themselves generate the most income of all.


Yes, a really simple game is more GM dependent. But a complex game causes shrinkage of the GM base. There’s a sweet spot somewhere in there.


The VOCAL players push for complexity. I suspect the average player does not.


In board and card games, we’ve seen significant “dumbing down” of hobby games in the past decade to accommodate the influx of new gamers as the hobby gets larger, who are often from “party game” roots. Games on average are much simpler and considerably shorter.


This is now a world where many people cannot do simple arithmetic in their heads - even college students. Where people want the “Easy Button”. It’s the Age of Convenience as well as the Age of Instant Gratification. You don’t have to read any rules to play video games. The more complexity in a tabletop game, the fewer people will want to play and especially, the fewer who will want to GM.


JeffB, there’s a large college-aged segment who go to game clubs to play tabletop board and card games regularly, but never buy any. Besides a (self-perceived) lack of money, they’re been “trained” in video games to expect games to be free in many cases. I’d say most of them are “naturally” RPGers (the focus on an avatar), but I don’t think they spend on RPGs either.


Lew Pulsipher


----------



## TerraDave (Apr 30, 2017)

Actually, what was the point again?

There is like a bazillion simpler RPGs out there. Simplification has been a trend for at least 20 years, and there where always simpler games. 

RPGs are actually doing well, all kinds of new players are coming in, in a way they have not for years. In fact, thats even in the column! 

But I don't think the point was that there are lots of simple games, many free or cheap, for those new players if they want them. 

I think there was another point, but neither the OP or long follow up post seems to explain it.


----------



## redrick (Apr 30, 2017)

This article seems a little out of place with the number 1 RPG currently being D&D 5e, which is definitely simpler than 3e and 4e and probably simpler than AD&D 2e as well. (I've never played 1e, so can't speak to that.) Going through my 2e PHB the other day, I was amazed at how few of the rules in that book I actually used when playing the game, whereas we probably use 90% of the rules in the 5e PHB without much difficulty at our table. Feats, which I think tend to be pretty daunting for first time players, don't come into play until level 4, which takes at least a half dozen sessions if starting from level 1, if not longer. The spell list is a little intimidating, but AD&D had plenty of spells to choose from as well.

There seems to be a desirable balance between complexity and accessibility that the makers of current D&D are going for, and that a lot of players enjoy.


----------



## Dungeonosophy (Apr 30, 2017)

*My Little Pony as 6E test-run*

Good article.  As people have pointed out, there are some promising simple RPGs out there: Dagger! and One Die come to mind.

I started to sketch out a super-streamlined version of 5e here: https://sites.google.com/site/dndphilmont/my-own-fifth-edition

As a test run for 6e, I think Mike Mearls ought to take WotC's new My Little Pony RPG system, and strip it of its setting, and repackage it as totally complete game--I mean _totally complete_.

Design goals for this _Simply D&D, The Storytelling Game_:

•Be able to advertise on the box: "We will never publish a rules expansion for this game. We will only publish Storytelling Adventures and new Storytelling Worlds."
•Explain that the Simply D&D game world is a different  version of the D&D Multiverse than the 5E version. In the SD&D Reality, there are only four classes: Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard--all PCs and classed NPCs in the whole Multiverse are represented by those four classes. And only the spells listed in the rulebook actually exist. BECMI officially used this "game reality" concept--see the old DRAGON magazine article:  https://sites.google.com/site/dndphilmont/d-d-realities
•Make world-hopping (perhaps via the World Serpent Inn) the default framework for a Simply D&D campaign.
•As one Storytelling World, present the entire D&D Multiverse as a single setting, in a nutshell.
•Make sure the SD&D set covers every single rule or key rule expansion ever published for any addition of D&D--mass combat, underwater, planar. How? By boiling it all down into ultra-streamlined, OD&D-style, hand-wave-based, but "official" rules. Make sure it's all covered: but "covered" could be a single chart, paragraph, or sentence.
•Give conversion guidelines for using Adventures from any edition. The goal is to Adventure, not to buy more rulebooks.
•Quickly release SD&D Worlds for all of Hasbro's key lines:
SD&D Magic: The Gathering, The Storytelling Game
SD&D Transformers, The Storytelling Game
SD&D GI Joe, The Storytelling Game
SD&D Candy Land
SD&D Monopoly. Hey, if you look at all of the spin-offs of Monopoly (Monopoly, Jr. etc) there is a story and setting behind it.
SD&D Clue
SD&D Mr. Potato Head
etc.

And for as many other IPs as feasible.
•Release the rules as an Open Game or Public Domain (Free Culture).
•Open the SD&D Hasbro settings to DM's Guild.

Voila! A blossoming new generation of RPGers.


----------



## Jester David (Apr 30, 2017)

Hussar said:


> OTOH, rules light games, while significantly easier in the sense that you can learn the game in a much shorter period of time, are often much, much more difficult to run at the table and the experience will vary much more because of the DM.



_*All*_ games will vary greatly depending on the DM and their experience at telling a story and managing a table. That's largely independent of the system. A good DM will always be able to make things fun and engaging. 



Hussar said:


> IOW, a more extensive ruleset, run by an average DM will give a better result than a less extensive ruleset run by the same DM.  The less extensive ruleset doesn't allow the DM to rely on the system, and makes it that much easier for the DM to make mistakes.



I've played in enough Living Greyhawk and Pathfinder Society games to know that an average or inexperienced DM being given a crunch heavy system is not a good thing, as they do not know the rules, make a lot of mistakes, slow the game down consulting the books, and cannot properly adjudicate at the table. 



Hussar said:


> I'd argue that the Rules Light games are less DM friendly than the rules heavy ones.  Sure, you can learn the game faster, but, because so much of the game relies on you, the DM, to make it run at the table, rules light games force DM's to play amateur game designer at the same time as they are trying to run the game.



I don't think being an amateur game designer is always necessary, not in really rules lite games. Medium rules games maybe, as not all actions are designed so you need to make up rules. Really rules lite games tend to be much more storytelling focused, so game design is unnecessary as there are no rules to design.

If playing something like the Tearable RPG (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/202680/Tearable-RPG) there's only really one type of action resolution, so either it applies or it doesn't.



Hussar said:


> Think of it this way.  Which would more likely to be an enjoyable 3 hour session - a 3 hour 5e session with a completely new DM running some module, or a 3 hour session of Dread with a completely new DM?  Yup, that Dread game might be fun.  It might also be absolutely horrible.  *Presuming our 5e DM actually follows the rules to a reasonable degree*, it's unlikely that his game will go completely wahoonie shaped.



Dread. 
Zero hesitation. Dread.

Emphasis added to your post. You add the _huge_ caveat that the rules have to be known. Because you can't follow rules you don't know.
Both games require the DM to tell the story, keep the action moving, describe the setting and situations, and present the NPCs. But with Dread they need to know almost zero rules. They can just focus on the story. In the 5e game, said new DM also has to learn all the 5e rules at the exact same time and answer rules questions. Suddenly there are two points of failure: telling the story _and_ managing the rules. If the DM isn't skilled at either, the game will not be fun.

A crunchy system can be a story crutch, as you can just "play" the mechanics: having combat encounters and relying on the inherent fun of the game system to have a good time. But that presumes some system mastery, otherwise a combat encounter can be too easy or hard. I played in a game with an experienced 2nd Edition DM who was new to 3e and it was a disaster because he had no idea how CR or EL worked. To say nothing of sloooooow combats as the DM tries to figure out what their monsters can do, checks rules, makes poor tactical choices, and the like.


The thing is, people learn to tell stories long before they can play RPGs. My 6yo son knows how to tell a story. New DMs can come into the game with amazing table management and storytelling skills. That's easy.


----------



## thzero (Apr 30, 2017)

> The more complexity in a tabletop game, the fewer people will want to play and especially, the fewer who will want to GM.





So just because people are lazy we need to dumb down a game?  Maybe RPGs don't need to be mass-market, maybe they are, and should be, just a niche game.   Not everything needs to have mass appeal.


----------



## Staccat0 (Apr 30, 2017)

Certainly too few rules can lead to confusion... that would fall into Einstein's "not simpler" addendum though.


----------



## martinlochsen (Apr 30, 2017)

Those casual, "lazy" players who don't want to put in any effort can't be GMs in a game using simpler rules either. It takes a great deal of effort to GM no matter what. Playing with teens, who are supposedly more convenience-oriented and less literate than the last generation (I'm not even sure that's true), I've seen almost the opposite of this sometimes. I've talked to a 15 year old's puzzled teacher who tells me that this boy has spent the last couple of years moaning about how much he hates books and how he would never read anything if he wasn't forced to at school, but now suddenly sits poring over this book, reading closely and taking notes, and the book isn't even in his first language. It was the 5e PHB, as you may have guessed. And that's just one example.
Also, I think the reason why boardgames' rules are getting simpler is because they are more enjoyable that way. The designs are more focused and streamlined, making for faster play and more focus on in-game choices rather than rules minutea. At least that's what people seem to be saying in the reviews.
This is a very subjective observation of course, but still... It seems to me that all this "people don't want to make the effort" is the sort of thing that seems intuitively true, or is a sort of truism that people agree to, but it's not necessarily tha way things actually are. People get bored with shallow, easy experiences too, and might want more depth. I don't know.


----------



## Xethreau (Apr 30, 2017)

I like systems that offer a variety of character options, but not necessarily a vast array of complex moving parts. D&D 5e is simpler than Pathfinder, storytelling is just as robust. FATE Core has robust storytelling and simple mechanics, but people who are uncomfortable with storytelling don't like it as much. I think that is a reaction to the type of player who insists that they want to somehow "win" at RPG.


----------



## Mercurius (Apr 30, 2017)

It seems like there are two separate, but related issues raised in the article: 

One, whether or not complex or simple games are good entry points for new players, in today's context, and
Two, how to expand a game financially.

Those may not be the exact points raised by the article, but I think they are two related issues that can be teased out.

As for the first, I am reminded of something I heard once, that that there is a difference between _complex _and _complicated. _The latter is like a nest of wires underneath your desk - it is messy and, hopefully, will eventually be done away with by advancing technologies. _Complexity _is different, though. The organic systems of nature are complex, but not complicated. They work together, seamlessly, organically. In a way,a _complex _game system would be one that isn't as much _complicated _(messy, with lots of fiddly bits) but one that can handle complex situations, through being tightly designed.

As for the second, the basic problem remains the same: you have two general types of D&D players: serious/hardcore ones, who tend to DM and buy tons of stuff, and casual players, who only buy what is necessary - maybe a PHB (and perhaps not even that), a set of dice, and perhaps a miniature. There isn't a lot in-between, just degrees of the former: serious-to-hardcore gamers (and consumers). TSR and WotC have tried different ways to get casual players to buy more, mainly through player options books, the complete handbooks of 2E days, etc. But the problem is that these invariably _complicate _the game, and lead to edition bloat.

Now WotC has taken a quite different approach to 5E: less is more. The idea has been to produce so few books, that the serious-to-hardcore gamers buy everything. There is probably less of a spectrum than before, and most of us DM types will buy everything that comes out because it is less daunting investment. Think about it: Three books per year is $150 (and that's MSRP, not Amazon), which ends up being about $12 a month. This is affordable to just about everyone, even 12-year old kids. 

Now I don't think that WotC necessarily thought, "What is the most we could publish that every serious player would buy everything of?" I think it was more about finding that tipping point, where they weren't going to glut the market, and they could keep a small enough staff to keep overhead low. 

But back to the article, I think there is a middle ground where a company (WotC) can be financially successful without making the game overly complicated. In fact, WotC is doing it right now. Their secret? Less is more: produce fewer books, but sell more of them. And don't glut the market or system with countless splats! They've got the right formula, but I think they're also eventually going to need to tweak it, expand just a bit - diversify the approach. This is why it makes sense to do a rules expansion now, or within the next year. One major rules expansion is easy enough to integrate into the game and diversify but not over-complicate. People can say, "Do you play just core rules or advanced?" Or "Do you use _Unveiled Esoterica _or not?" (Or whatever it will be called). 

I think WotC is playing it very smart by being conservative, but at the same time they should be wary of things getting stale and should be prepared to diversify their approach, throw in a rules expansion or theme book (e.g. planes), a new setting, etc.


----------



## thzero (Apr 30, 2017)

> but people who are uncomfortable with storytelling don't like it as much. I think that is a reaction to the type of player who insists that they want to somehow "win" at RPG.





Just because someone isn't "mr. all I want to do is write a novel, or be an actor" does not mean that all they want to do is "win" at RPGs.   People can play RPGs for many reasons, with many different styles (even at the same table), and all equally enjoy the time spent.


----------



## thzero (Apr 30, 2017)

> Now WotC has taken a quite different approach to 5E: less is more.





Thats not a different approach.  As pointed out there are plenty of systems out there that are lighter to almost nonexistent as far as rules goes. 




> Now I don't think that WotC necessarily thought, "What is the most we could publish that every serious player would buy everything of?"





If they didn't, then they were fools.  5e may have less rules that 3.X or 4e, but it was at its core another money making change - crunch doesn't carry forward, so everyone needs to buy everything over again.   And also gives them another marketing opportunity... in effect it was 'all new, and 20% less!'


----------



## 77IM (Apr 30, 2017)

_Mutants and Masterminds_ is an excellent example of a system that's sold lots of supplements WITHOUT adding rules bloat. The core rules are so comprehensive and flexible that additional crunch isn't really needed. So instead the supplements tend to support different fiction genres, game-play styles, and campaign settings. Of course the core rules of _M&M_ aren't exactly simple, but I would argue that they are streamlined in a way that makes them easy to understand.

My point is that rules bloat through supplements is NOT an inevitable consequence of the RPG industry.


----------



## S'mon (Apr 30, 2017)

Hussar said:


> Think of it this way.  Which would more likely to be an enjoyable 3 hour session - a 3 hour 5e session with a completely new DM running some module, or a 3 hour session of Dread with a completely new DM?  Yup, that Dread game might be fun.  It might also be absolutely horrible.




No idea about dread, but I'd bet on eg Moldvay Basic D&D over both. My experience is pretty much the opposite of yours. I would say the easiest games to run successfully combine simple rules with lots of 
procedural content generation. All the Moldvay GM needs is that book (it even has an adventure in it) and maybe a sketch of a wilderness to support long term play.

I also think simple games better support GMs learning how to adjudicate, to my mind the most
important GMing skill. Moldvay has just the right level of support for that, with advice on various d6-related checks and the optional ability check rule.


----------



## SerHogan (May 1, 2017)

You have a poor understanding of how capitalist economies work.


----------



## ArchfiendBobbie (May 1, 2017)

SerHogan said:


> You have a poor understanding of how capitalist economies work.




That's because they don't work. Even such capitalism-friendly nations as the United States don't practice true capitalism for exactly that reason, due to learning that lesson the hard way.

The U.S. economy, for example, is more of a socialism-capitalism hybrid.

So, really, no one knows how they work because we've yet to see one actually work.

That said, could you enlighten me what your point was in saying that?


----------



## Hussar (May 1, 2017)

lewpuls said:


> /snip
> 
> In board and card games, we’ve seen significant “dumbing down” of hobby games in the past decade to accommodate the influx of new gamers as the hobby gets larger, who are often from “party game” roots. Games on average are much simpler and considerably shorter.




Really?  Now that I do not agree with at all.  While, sure, you don't see games like Advanced Squad Leader coming out too often anymore, frankly, you almost never did before either.  Until the 90's, the vast majority of board games were the fairly bog standard Monopoly style games.  

Now, you have all the Eurostyle games, starting with grandaddy Catan on forward, where you have levels of complexity from fairly simple, like Catan to extremely complicated, like Eclipse or Civilization.  The notion that board games have been "dumbed down" is not something I agree with at all.



> This is now a world where many people cannot do simple arithmetic in their heads - even college students. Where people want the “Easy Button”. It’s the Age of Convenience as well as the Age of Instant Gratification. You don’t have to read any rules to play video games. The more complexity in a tabletop game, the fewer people will want to play and especially, the fewer who will want to GM.




What do you mean "now"?  Sorry, but, I'm 45 years old.  Nearly no one my age or older can do simple arithmetic in their head.  Again, this smells a lot like "git off my lawn".  No, sorry, people's math skills have not attrophied.  People today are the same as they were thirty or fifty years ago.  Except possibly better read considering that reading for pleasure was virtually unheard of in my generation.



> JeffB, there’s a large college-aged segment who go to game clubs to play tabletop board and card games regularly, but never buy any. Besides a (self-perceived) lack of money, they’re been “trained” in video games to expect games to be free in many cases. I’d say most of them are “naturally” RPGers (the focus on an avatar), but I don’t think they spend on RPGs either.
> 
> 
> Lew Pulsipher




Oh, that's crap.  I'm sorry, but, that's complete crap.  Back in the day, groups often had 1 PHB and 1 DMG.  The idea that they've been trained by video games for games to be free is a load of hooey.  Casual players who never buy anything have made up a majority of players since day 1.  

This thread has gone from an interesting comparison between heavy and light systems, to someone sitting on their front porch blaming all the young'uns about today's problems.


----------



## Evenglare (May 1, 2017)

Eh, I dont know. Everyone seems to point at some sort of golden RPG which defines some kind of money vs complexity that would be ideal, and its not that simple. If you define an RPG's success by money, then you get complexity, if you define it by people wanting simplicity then you get more people introduced to the genre. There are tons of other lenses to look at the industry and there simply isn't a right answer. There exists different types of RPGs for different people who have different amounts of money for the game, time to learn the game, etc. And even the game with the biggest player base, doesn't mean the game is making money, and vice versa. Some people love obscure games and they shouldn't be left out because they aren't in the majority. I view the RPG industry at least tabletop wise as a place where a homebrew setting can thrive right next to an industrialized powerhouse where honestly both can provide similar levels of enjoyment. Money, complexity and popularity are simply one of a near infinite amount of viewpoints to take.


----------



## Hussar (May 1, 2017)

S'mon said:


> No idea about dread, but I'd bet on eg Moldvay Basic D&D over both. My experience is pretty much the opposite of yours. I would say the easiest games to run successfully combine simple rules with lots of
> procedural content generation. All the Moldvay GM needs is that book (it even has an adventure in it) and maybe a sketch of a wilderness to support long term play.
> 
> I also think simple games better support GMs learning how to adjudicate, to my mind the most
> important GMing skill. Moldvay has just the right level of support for that, with advice on various d6-related checks and the optional ability check rule.




Well, a couple of things.

1.  Moldvay Basic isn't exactly a rules light system.  Look at the combat rules.  That is not a rules light system.   

2.  I've played Moldvay Basic with what you're talking about and the experiences vary wildly.  It is SO dependent on the GM.  Sure, if they have the natural aptitude for it, it can be fun.  Otherwise, it devolves into a whole host of arguing about rulings and fairness issues.  

As I said, my experiences are quite different from yours.  I come from a LOOONNNG history of very, very poor DM's.  IME, a good DM is not a common thing to find.  So, going from 2e to 3e was a huge breath of fresh air as 90% of the table arguments that we used to have vanished practically overnight.  

So, no, I'm not a fan of rules light systems when it comes to a new GM.  Most of the rules light systems I've seen generally depend on experienced GM's to already know how to run a game.


----------



## PMárk (May 1, 2017)

Yes, you could sell a less complex game to more people, because new or casual gamers tend to favor them.

Still, a lot of people want more depth and complexity, enough that those games are still viable for business. 

There's also a migration from the first group to the second and also there are plenty of people who are long-term players, but favor minimalist games. 

I don't think any of them is the saint grail of the rpg hobby, or the 'future' (at least I hope so, I want complex games on the scene), there is demand for all kind of games, but yes, probably you could sell light and lower-medium games for the largest number of people.


----------



## PMárk (May 1, 2017)

thzero said:


> So just because people are lazy we need to dumb down a game?  Maybe RPGs don't need to be mass-market, maybe they are, and should be, just a niche game.   Not everything needs to have mass appeal.




Yeah, thought the same. I'd add that not every rpg need to have mass appeal and that's still not true, since fairly complex games are quite popular, while there are plenty of really obscure minimalist games. 

It's just not that simple as "people don't want complex games in this rushing world".


----------



## Yaztromo (May 1, 2017)

I can understand this point of view: there are simple and quick RPG systems that work pefectly well and that allow you to start playing purposefully in five minutes (lieterally). They would be perfect to involve new players and new game masters, but reality is that there is more money to make in complex games that appeal to hard core fans and scare away possible newcomers that may expand the number of gamers. More money in complex games means more opportunities to hire best creative talents for complex games.
Simple games have to go uphill.


----------



## ArchfiendBobbie (May 1, 2017)

Yaztromo said:


> I can understand this point of view: there are simple and quick RPG systems that work pefectly well and that allow you to start playing purposefully in five minutes (lieterally). They would be perfect to involve new players and new game masters, but reality is that there is more money to make in complex games that appeal to hard core fans and scare away possible newcomers that may expand the number of gamers. More money in complex games means more opportunities to hire best creative talents for complex games.
> Simple games have to go uphill.




I don't think this actually holds out anymore.

Paizo, which pretty much is one of the complex system kings, repeatedly indicated even during their best years that they were not making that much profit for their game. They were trapped in having to rely on the more-expensive books to keep their profits up enough to stay in business; the guy in charge indicated repeatedly this was exactly why their subscription services don't offer PDF-only options, despite the fact they offer pretty much everything as a PDF. And keep in mind this was back when Pathfinder was the dominant tabletop; I have no clue what financial shape they're in now, but I seriously doubt it improved.

WotC, on the other hand, has made it a point to use a slow release schedule with a, for DnD, massively simplified system... and they've shown profit repeatedly ever since 5E came out. Even Hasbro has mentioned them positively in a few shareholder reports, which is quite rare for WotC.

Pinnacle Entertainment, on the other hand, makes most of their money not through selling a load of books, but by leveraging Kickstarter to fund their projects so that all income they get after the books release is profit. They also advertise the Kickstarters of other companies using their ruleset, guaranteeing those companies will do the same for them when they decide to do a project.

Pretty much, the two companies doing well are not doing so through complex systems; neither 5E nor Savage Worlds are actually complex. And the one big-name that did rely on a complex system wasn't doing that well even at their height.


----------



## zurg (May 1, 2017)

I disagree with the article.  Complex games are easier to GM because you can rely on the rules as others have stated.  Also, who doesn't love giving their money to companies and people making new editions, new games, new rules, etc?  These people are the ones keeping our hobby alive and moving forward.  I support as many of them as I can, even buying games and supplements I know may never hit my table.  All hail capitalism and its ability to constantly destroy and advance things.


----------



## thzero (May 1, 2017)

ArchfiendBobbie said:


> Pinnacle Entertainment, on the other hand, makes most of their money not through selling a load of books, but by leveraging Kickstarter to fund their projects so that all income they get after the books release is profit.




Got a cite for that?

While 5e may not be 3.X/Pathfinder complex, its hardly 'simple' and I wouldn't put it at the same complexity level of Savage Worlds either.



ArchfiendBobbie said:


> Pretty much, the two companies doing well are not doing so through complex systems; neither 5E nor Savage Worlds are actually complex. And the one big-name that did rely on a complex system wasn't doing that well even at their height.






Yaztromo said:


> but reality is that there is more money to make in complex games that appeal to hard core fans and scare away possible newcomers that may expand the number of gamers.




Thats junk.  Go to GenCon, most everyone will be there except maybe WotC, and ask them point blank.... "are you trying to scare away possible newcomers?"  I bet the answer is a resounding "no".


----------



## ArchfiendBobbie (May 1, 2017)

thzero said:


> Got a cite for that?




Yeah. "Stuff I Interpreted From Watching Them Do All Those Damned Kickstarters," ArchfiendBobbie, Miskatonic University Journal of Business, December 15th, 2016.

(I hope you got a laugh.)



> While 5e may not be 3.X/Pathfinder complex, its hardly 'simple' and I wouldn't put it at the same complexity level of Savage Worlds either.




Savage Worlds is actually a bit more complex. Take a good, long look at the rules for vehicle chases, certain bits of magic, etc. 5E core rules involve a lot less wonkiness and a lot fewer special cases as long as you're not throwing in optional mechanics like crazy.



> Thats junk.  Go to GenCon, most everyone will be there except maybe WotC, and ask them point blank.... "are you trying to scare away possible newcomers?"  I bet the answer is a resounding "no".




Been. Asked. Got that answer from everyone, including WotC.

Asked them the follow-up question of, "How many complain about the complexity of your rules?" The more complex the rules were, the more complaints they got.

Followed up with a third question of, "How many buy your stuff here?" The answers broke down along lines expected due to a combination of marketing and how well-known they are, though I noticed Paizo's answer was lower than Pinnacle Entertainment's and WotC's.

Call it junk all you want... but go ask the people at Paizo directly why they don't do PDF subscriptions. They'll tell you flat-out they can't afford the profit loss. Assuming that you don't get fifty million people quoting you and referring you to one of the dozens of other times people asked that question and got that same answer.

Ask that of Pinnacle Entertainment, and they'll flat-out tell you they simply don't do subscriptions because they don't need to. And WotC will, if asked about PDFs, do their normal verbal shrug or point you to Fantasy Grounds in their typical "we don't really care" tone.

If you want more fun? Go take a look at the release dates of their products. WotC never had a fast schedule on 5E, so it's no surprise they're not bothering with new releases that often. Pinnacle Entertainment pretty much treats Savage Worlds like hobby income, so it's really no surprise they have a schedule of "when we feel like it" for how fast they get products out. But Paizo, for whom Pathfinder has been serious since day one? They're ramping down their production schedule in Pathfinder; new Campaign, Companion, and Modules are being released on a reduced schedule as of late and now they're going bi-monthly with the APs. What does it tell you that rather than ramp up production with a new product coming out, they're ramping down and devoting half their resources to that new product?

I want Paizo to succeed as well. They're a good company, and their products are amazing. Golarion you can run nearly any form of fantasy you can imagine in without changing to a different setting. But the same attention to detail that had them producing so many products for so long has bit them on the rear hard, and you can see it both with how they're ramping down Pathfinder production even before Starfinder was an announced project and in how they're planning to treat Starfinder. And you can hear it every time they admit that allowing pure PDF subscriptions would put them out of business.

Edit: And because this post was depressing, I invite everyone to contemplate Ponyfinder. Because Ponyfinder is awesome.


----------



## thzero (May 1, 2017)

ArchfiendBobbie said:


> Savage Worlds is actually a bit more complex. Take a good, long look at the rules for vehicle chases, certain bits of magic, etc. 5E core rules involve a lot less wonkiness and a lot fewer special cases as long as you're not throwing in optional mechanics like crazy.




It's also a 'generic system' and 5e is not.   If you look at just the core Savage Worlds even tossing in fantasy it is really quite straightforward.




ArchfiendBobbie said:


> Been. Asked. Got that answer from everyone, including WotC.
> 
> ..lots of blah blah..




Well, forgive me if I don't believe random person on internet actually did what they said (I wouldn't believe me either...).   Do it journalist style, I'll be more than happy to at least give it credence.




ArchfiendBobbie said:


> Edit: And because this post was depressing, I invite everyone to contemplate Ponyfinder. Because Ponyfinder is awesome.




Ponyfinder is about as far from awesome as you can get.   That's just depressing.


----------



## thzero (May 1, 2017)

ArchfiendBobbie said:


> I want Paizo to succeed as well. They're a good company, and their products are amazing. Golarion you can run nearly any form of fantasy you can imagine in without changing to a different setting. But the same attention to detail that had them producing so many products for so long has bit them on the rear hard, and you can see it both with how they're ramping down Pathfinder production even before Starfinder was an announced project and in how they're planning to treat Starfinder.





I play PF a lot.  However, I hate Golarion with a passion - not that I was really a fan of Forgotten Realms - both try and add everyone's taste into it, and it just ends up tasting like bland gruel.

I admit, I've not bothered to chart out the spacing of the Paizo products; but they are still doing quite a bit of PF right now.  New bestiary, a new campaign settings, a couple of new APs, fairly steady stream of PFS scenarios, etc.

Re: Starfinder... ever think that since its a unknown, and no idea how it will be received, that any company would be wise not to take things rather slow with said new property?   Yeah, seems to be wise idea.


----------



## mflayermonk (May 1, 2017)

[MENTION=6680772]Iosue[/MENTION] posted a video where WotC people were talking about a survey they conducted.
Results: "One interesting tidbit was that there was a positive correlation between complexity of class and non-combat satisfaction, and a negative correlation between complexity of class and combat satisfaction. Good stuff!

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...nd-Crawford)-at-DigiPen-(video)#ixzz4fo561t9C
"

Not totally on topic, but an interesting side note.


----------



## aramis erak (May 1, 2017)

Rules Light doesn't actually make GMing well easier - only the lookup time changes. This can make it LOOK easier, but faster and easier are not synonymous.

Rules light requires the GM to make more rules calls, more interpretations, and be more in tune with his players.

And I find that I'm better able to wing things with a mid-complexity game rather than a low-complexity one.


----------



## S'mon (May 1, 2017)

Hussar said:


> As I said, my experiences are quite different from yours.  I come from a LOOONNNG history of very, very poor DM's.  IME, a good DM is not a common thing to find.  So, going from 2e to 3e was a huge breath of fresh air as 90% of the table arguments that we used to have vanished practically overnight.




Poor GMs who could run a good game of 3e D&D?
It sounds to me that the main difference is that your group/you/those around you seem to like to argue about how the GM is running the game. I don't regard that as a legitimate thing to do at the table. In fact I saw far far more arguing from players in 3e D&D games than in any other version, precisely because 
everything is so defined. It's really odd because I'm 44 yet almost all your experiences seem consistently 
the exact opposite of mine. Even on eg boardgames - IME hobby boardgames of the 1970s and 1980s were indeed very complicated, whereas now hobby boardgames are typically much simpler.
It's like we're in Mirror Universes.


----------



## S'mon (May 1, 2017)

Hussar said:


> Well, a couple of things.
> 
> 1.  Moldvay Basic isn't exactly a rules light system.  Look at the combat rules.  That is not a rules light system.  :




Yeah, I actually learned GMing from Fighting Fantasy the Introductory RPG, which really is 
rules-light. But I was aided by "What is Dungeons & Dragons?" which was a book about Moldvay Basic.


----------



## S'mon (May 1, 2017)

ArchfiendBobbie said:


> But Paizo, for whom Pathfinder has been serious since day one? They're ramping down their production schedule in Pathfinder; new Campaign, Companion, and Modules are being released on a reduced schedule as of late and now they're going bi-monthly with the APs.




30 minutes of Googling reveals no reference to this from Paizo. The Starfinder APs will be bimonthly, but all the Pathfinder AP references on Paizo's site still refer to them as monthly. So they are actually ramping up production overall.


----------



## Campbell (May 1, 2017)

I think this is another one of those assumed binaries that does not really speak truth to power. I think it matters very much where complexity is applied. I tend to favor games with a hidden depth. Simple to create characters and start playing, but with lots of meat to dive into in play. I think 5th Edition Dungeons and Dragons fits the bill as does Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, Edge of the Empire, and Chronicles of Darkness. I mean this is the model behind World of Warcraft, Texas Hold'em, and Overwatch are built on. It's all about emergent play.


----------



## Hussar (May 1, 2017)

S'mon said:


> /snip
> 
> Even on eg boardgames - IME hobby boardgames of the 1970s and 1980s were indeed very complicated, whereas now hobby boardgames are typically much simpler.
> It's like we're in Mirror Universes.




Oh, sure, there were complicated board games back in the day.  ASL.  Anything by Yaquinto games.  Sure, I'll agree.  But, those were some really niche games that only hard core board gamers played.  Compare to now, where you have games that run the full range from very simple, to extremely complex.  The only real difference is that now, there are so many more board games to choose from, and it's so easy to buy whatever you want.  

But, yeah, I think we've had very different experiences.  Like I said, once we switched over to 3e, rules arguments lasted about 3 seconds - DM makes a call, someone questions the call, the rules guru in the group points to chapter and verse in the book (typically hitting a Hypertext SRD link) and move on.  Unlike in earlier editions where there just wasn't any rule to look at.

I think a big difference for me, is that games like Basic/Expert D&D aren't rules light.  They're rules absent.  My fighter wants to climb a tree.  What do I roll?  Well, that's entirely a DM call and it usually boils down to the Roll a D20, Roll High, method.  And then you run into things like, "NO, you absolutely cannot jump in armor" and "Of course that katana can cut through a wall" sort of shenanigans.  

Rules light systems, at least good ones, are ones where you actually have a rules based answer for actions.  Savage World's Rule of 4 is a perfect example.


----------



## S'mon (May 1, 2017)

Hussar said:


> I think a big difference for me, is that games like Basic/Expert D&D aren't rules light.  They're rules absent.  My fighter wants to climb a tree.  What do I roll?  Well, that's entirely a DM call and it usually boils down to the Roll a D20, Roll High, method.  And then you run into things like, "NO, you absolutely cannot jump in armor" and "Of course that katana can cut through a wall" sort of shenanigans.
> 
> Rules light systems, at least good ones, are ones where you actually have a rules based answer for actions.  Savage World's Rule of 4 is a perfect example.




Well, for climbing tree, jumping pit et al Moldvay has "roll under DEX on d20" or "roll d6+attribute bonus vs target number" (mentioned in a few places but oddly not universalised). But I do sort of agree. I like running Target Number systems like 5e which tell me "roll d20+bonuses, a good target number is between 10 and 20 for easy to hard tasks" - they do often take less mental effort than running my Mentzer BECM game. But OTOH there would be nothing to stop my 5e players complaining when I occasionally tell them the task DC is 23 (or 27) if they were so inclined.


----------



## Celebrim (May 1, 2017)

I don't have time to respond to this essay with the length and attention to detail that it deserves.  I feel it's addressing a very important issue in a rather unorganized manner.  

I will leave a quote behind that touches on my understanding of the issue:

"If your game has Rule Zero in it, it's rules heavy. Period. And the more you rely on Rule Zero, the heavier it gets."

And likewise,

"If your game doesn't have Rule Zero in it, it's not an RPG; it's a board game."

The problem is that there is no such thing as a rules light RPG.  It's a myth.  And there is certainly no such thing as a successful rules light RPG, and not just for the economic reasons that the OP describes.   The problem is that simplicity in an RPG is actually not an attribute of the rules, but an attribute of the scenarios.  An RPG is simple only for a certain set of scenarios that it handles in a simple way.   So long as the scenarios match these simplifying assumptions, the rules will seem 'simple' or 'light-weight'.   As soon however in the course of play you move away from these 'toy' scenarios and have more organic scenarios things may no longer seem so simple.   Dealing with these new scenarios in a simple way will require a new set of simplifying assumptions about things like granularity and process resolution.   But, as a result, now you'll have several different resolution methods.   

A system that ignores that isn't simpler.  It's just incomplete.


----------



## Von Ether (May 1, 2017)

It really boils down to your players.

I've had both good and bad lite RPG nights but few mediocre ones. 

With more complex games, I've had many more mediocre nights, few good nights and more bad nights. 

The bad nights came from bored players. The bored players come from two camps, those who are impatient with the rules and those who are frustrated that the rules don't give them the tactical options they want ( regardless of the complexity of those rules.)

 The mediocre nights were from the pace of the game becoming deflated by looking up the rules too often.

And the good nights were times when the rules weren't really a factor, or we threw them right out the window.


----------



## Moravave (May 1, 2017)

I like to DM like I'm the priest, not God. The rules are God, they are the final word. I think my players appreciate that as well. I can make a judgement call to move stuff along but if we choose to take the time, the actual rules answer will always be waiting for us in the books. As a group we love looking something up and seeing the way the rules solve the problem - we're all gamers, this is part of the fun for us, working within the system.

I'm currently looking to run some B/X and 1e for nostalgia purposes but one thing I'll miss about 5e when I do is all of those clean, easy to find answers. 5e has done a very good job of being both light and robust at the same exact time. The more I play it the more I appreciate this.


----------



## Mercule (May 1, 2017)

Before getting into things, let me be clear that I think there's a pretty broad middle ground and that the "sweet spot" depends a lot of factors including, but not limited to GM skill, player skill, competitiveness, play goals (where they fall on the GNS scheme). 



Hussar said:


> OTOH, rules light games, while significantly easier in the sense that you can learn the game in a much shorter period of time, are often much, much more difficult to run at the table and the experience will vary much more because of the DM.
> 
> IOW, a more extensive ruleset, run by an average DM will give a better result than a less extensive ruleset run by the same DM.  The less extensive ruleset doesn't allow the DM to rely on the system, and makes it that much easier for the DM to make mistakes.
> 
> I'd argue that the Rules Light games are less DM friendly than the rules heavy ones.  Sure, you can learn the game faster, but, because so much of the game relies on you, the DM, to make it run at the table, rules light games force DM's to play amateur game designer at the same time as they are trying to run the game.



I could not disagree with this more. Over 35 years of gaming, I've done various degrees of rules-light and rules-heavy, with the highest number of gaming hours logged between all D&D/AD&D editions (except 4E), Hero System, Storyteller/oWoD, and Shadowrun. At various times, I've bemoaned the ailments of "imprecise" or "vague" systems and at others, I've cursed rules-lawyering players who wouldn't let things be. One round of Phoenix Command, at a con, cured me of any interest in truly "realistic" game rules. I understand the lure, but it isn't what draws me to game.

There's a minimum amount of rules for "completeness", but most games can fit their core rules onto a single page -- or less. For D&D 5E, it's "determine your bonus (stat + optional proficiency + misc mods), roll a d20 and add bonuses, compare against the DC (AC is a special case of DC), if you roll equal to or greater than the DC then you succeed/hit/whatever. Some effects are not binary and typically use another die to determine how well an action succeeds (damage die). The rest of the page can be used for showing the DC chart, how to calculate AC, opposed checks, etc. You could summarize the character creation and advancement rules onto another page, maybe two. While a handful of additional rules exist, the vast majority of everything else in the PHB, DMG, and MM represents either guidance for applying those core rules, exceptions to the core rules and general guidance, lists of powers that open new things that can be done with the core mechanics, and/or reference tables to find bonuses.

That's not to say there's no value in anything beyond the most core, say, 32 pages of rules -- one of the things that keeps me with D&D is the extensive lists of monsters and spells, both of which could be considered "application". The point I'm really making is that there are a lot of pages devoted to stuff that a "good DM" should be able to wing, IMO. It doesn't really matter whether attacking through cover grants a +2 to AC or disadvantage on the attack; the math is pretty similar for most DCs. It actually doesn't even make much difference whether it's consistent between attempts, other than the basic appearance of whether the GM knows what he's doing. Likewise, the long-term implications of a +2 situational bonus vs. a +3 situational bonus are pretty minimal, unless your group has really selective luck and misses by 1 a lot.

IME, when there are a lot of rules applications provided, there's a tendency by all involved to ensure they're following the rules as closely as they can, even if it means slowing down play when the details aren't going to change the result. In AD&D (and other games of that era), we rotated GMs with some regularity -- there were generally two primary GMs in any group I was part of, with others occasionally taking turns. Each felt free to tweak rules applications as he saw fit, based on story flow and setting lore. Yes, there were the occasional rules arguments or attempts at rules lawyering. But, the GM felt free to say, "suck it". Those GMs that made generally good rulings and kept the game moving in a fun and engaging way had standing groups. Those that failed to entertain weren't as in demand and would either improve or disengage.

Clearly, a new GM won't have the experience to make fair rulings. That's part of the process of becoming a good GM. So, having sufficient rules applications help a GM to understand how to apply the rules to situations. Too many applications can overwhelm the newer GM, though. Too few, and the GM has to learn too much by sink-or-swim. The truly newbie GM can only handle so much, but their ability (and need, typically) to digest additional rules applications increases quickly. At a certain point, however, a GM will gain sufficient comfort with the basic rules and the particulars of applying them to various situations that there is not really a need to have as much spelled out. At this point, additional complexity in the rules are either ignored by the group or provide fodder for arguments, depending on the group. So, I'd say low-moderate complexity benefits the novice GM. Moderate-to-high complexity benefits a proficient GM. But, low-moderate or even low complexity benefits an expert GM.

But... Players are the other side of the discussion. For the first part of the curve, the same thoughts apply: as much complexity as they can handle to gain an understanding of how core rules can be applied. What about the expert player, though? Do they benefit from a return to lower complexity rules? Well, it depends.

If the group is meeting for the "game" factor, then increased rules complexity means more opportunity for game mastery. Personally, I love highly complex strategy games; the more moving parts and obscure rules, the better, and I get a huge thrill from using strategies that bring together subtle rules interactions in surprising ways. The gamist RPG player will, of course, be more inclined to enjoy heavy rules and good for them.

If the group is really about the story and focuses on things like pacing, character depth, etc. then too many rules will just get in the way. Once you have enough tools to do what you need, the rest is clutter. In fact, a group that gets together primarily to tell interactive stories may never need to get to the moderate-to-high level of complexity.

My personal belief is that the middle road is going to be most applicable to most groups: neither too complex/gamist nor too simple/narrativist. Only very experienced groups (not just GMs) will benefit from either very complex or very simple systems. Those that do are likely to only benefit from one or the other. They are both a niche of a niche. The extremely light systems have the advantage of being cheap to pick up and run for one-shots or other special case games. High complexity systems demand system mastery that only comes from focus and dedication.

D&D 5E is probably about as complex as I'd care to see a mainstream (that being a very relative term) system to go. In fact, it's a bit too complex in some areas, for my taste. I'll openly acknowledge, though, that I would consider myself to be a more than proficient GM and I favor the narrative aspect of RPGs, preferring to keep system mastery in the realm of board games. That's just what I want out of an RPG.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (May 1, 2017)

It seems to me that "complexity" and "choice" often get conflated in discussions like this. With D&D 5E, for example, it is (to me) inarguable that the game is low complexity: but it has a high degree of choice, most of which is divorced to some degree from the complexity factor. 3rd edition and Pathfinder by contrast often added complexity through choice as part of the design decision....so what 5E did in this regard was figure out a way to continue to offer a wealth of options for people without ramping up the complexity in the process. Adding a new class in 5E shouldn't make the underlying design/mechanics more complex in 5E...and if it does, then you're doing it wrong.

This is one of the reasons I feel 5E is doing so well. Sure, it doesn't have as much choice as 3rd edition did.....but it does offer you a really compelling range of options in a smaller package, with the guarantee (so far) that those options won't increase the overall complexity of the experience.

I also think Savage Worlds is the same way, with a core experience that (in play) demonstrates how damned smooth and easy the game is. It's learning curve is very slightly higher than D&D 5E, but once learned it is like learning to ride a bike: you never forget. That plus the appeal of an "all in one" experience for $10 is kind of amazing.


----------



## Von Ether (May 1, 2017)

Double post


----------



## Celebrim (May 1, 2017)

Mercule said:


> It doesn't really matter whether attacking through cover grants a +2 to AC or disadvantage on the attack; the math is pretty similar for most DCs.




You're, in general, absolutely right that small differences in the answer don't matter.

What really matters is whether the rules address the issue of attacking through cover at all.  If the rules don't address attacking through cover at all, that matters.  You are know in a situation where the GM must either ignore this scenario as irrelevant to play (most usually by making sure consciously or unconsciously that it doesn't come up), or else must rulesmith out an answer with no clues on the fly when it does come up.

The mental cost of that rulesmithing in uncommon situations isn't that different from the mental overhead of knowing the answer from the rules.   But the mental cost of rulesmithing answers to common situations is much heavier than the mental overhead of knowing the answer from the rules, and this is generally addressed by the GM by simply defacto making the ruling a rule.   In other words, every time the situation comes up, the GM uses the rule he used before.

But this has a problem, in that now rules are play tested in play, and often the player (or the GM) begins to have cause to contest and/or regret the original ruling.  Sure, whether the GM introduced the idea of -2 penalty to hit or disadvantage on the attack might not matter much, but we're assuming here the GM made choices like that instead of say a -10 penalty to hit or the target gets to make a Dexterity save to dodge the attack.  Suddenly, the game has become all about obtaining cover, and the GM and the players are going to discover that and deal with the consequences whatever they are.   

That may seem like a silly case, but anecdotal history is filled with examples of GM's rule smithing out far less logical and intuitive and balanced answers to unanswered questions than that.   Back when we had an explicit house rules forum, much of my posts involved trying to explain to would be rule's smiths that their brilliant ideas perhaps weren't as brilliant as they thought they were.



> It actually doesn't even make much difference whether it's consistent between attempts, other than the basic appearance of whether the GM knows what he's doing.




You make it sound like the basic appearance of whether the GM knows what he's doing is a small matter.  What you are talking about is the crux of GM/player trust, and that's the foundation upon which tables are functional rather than dysfunctional.  



> But... Players are the other side of the discussion. For the first part of the curve, the same thoughts apply: as much complexity as they can handle to gain an understanding of how core rules can be applied. What about the expert player, though? Do they benefit from a return to lower complexity rules? Well, it depends.




Players benefit from a middle ground as well.  Whatever actions or moves you provide the players tend to become implicitly the set of moves that the player feels entitled to offer, and often as not any other moves are never even imagined.  If the rules don't explicitly tell the player, "You can try to trip your opponent!"  or "You can try to take your opponent's weapon from them!" or even "You can try to do things that aren't covered anywhere by these rules!", the players propositions will tend to be very rote, "I attack the X."   The real issue is whether the rules explicitly state that anything not forbidden by the rules is permitted, or whether they imply or even state that anything not permitted by the rules is forbidden.

One of the problem with seemingly elegant systems is that they tend to implicitly or explicitly state that they only cover a very particular sort of game as the only game that should be played.  Whereas a game like AD&D with all its baroque and obscure rules meant that you weren't not playing D&D when you were playing a game of mass combat and dynastic, multigenerational play, where your latest PC was the child of a former adventurer and was concerned with getting a good marriage to strengthen diplomatic ties at court and increase the scope of his feudal holdings.  It meant you were still playing D&D when you're former adventurer bought warehouses, factories, and sailing ships and ran a mercantile cartel, or when you went traipsing around the cosmos dealing with gods and the fate of the universe.  Or, on a smaller scale, they never encourage a player to say something like, "I lock blades with the foe and try to leverage him around so that we have switched places."  (Which, AD&D, with it's explicitly abstract and supposedly 'simple' combat system never provoked as a thought in 99.9% of player's imaginations, and so never occurred in AD&D stories.)

Rule 'light' systems might be extended to cover things that they don't explicitly cover, assuming the participants ever realize that they can, and are willing to work out how.  It's just generally, they don't, and aren't, and can't.


----------



## Mercule (May 1, 2017)

Celebrim said:


> You're, in general, absolutely right that small differences in the answer don't matter.
> 
> What really matters is whether the rules address the issue of attacking through cover at all.  If the rules don't address attacking through cover at all, that matters.  You are know in a situation where the GM must either ignore this scenario as irrelevant to play (most usually by making sure consciously or unconsciously that it doesn't come up), or else must rulesmith out an answer with no clues on the fly when it does come up.
> 
> The mental cost of that rulesmithing in uncommon situations isn't that different from the mental overhead of knowing the answer from the rules.   But the mental cost of rulesmithing answers to common situations is much heavier than the mental overhead of knowing the answer from the rules, and this is generally addressed by the GM by simply defacto making the ruling a rule.   In other words, every time the situation comes up, the GM uses the rule he used before.



Agreed, generally speaking. I'm only talking about the upper end of GM ability. I was specifically speaking to the assertion that light rules are worse for the most experienced/best GMs. I'm also really only knocking very complex systems. I have no problem with having the rules for cover called out in the PHB; in fact, I appreciate them being there. As I indicated elsewhere, one of the reasons I still play D&D is because there are specific rules for a lot of things. Mostly, I appreciate the lists of spells, monsters, and magic items, but there are other perks. In this case, I'm not sure whether I'd really miss having the rules for cover spelled out if I moved to Fate, rather than just having someone invoke an aspect if there cared.



> But this has a problem, in that now rules are play tested in play, and often the player (or the GM) begins to have cause to contest and/or regret the original ruling.  Sure, whether the GM introduced the idea of -2 penalty to hit or disadvantage on the attack might not matter much, but we're assuming here the GM made choices like that instead of say a -10 penalty to hit or the target gets to make a Dexterity save to dodge the attack.  Suddenly, the game has become all about obtaining cover, and the GM and the players are going to discover that and deal with the consequences whatever they are.
> 
> That may seem like a silly case, but anecdotal history is filled with examples of GM's rule smithing out far less logical and intuitive and balanced answers to unanswered questions than that.   Back when we had an explicit house rules forum, much of my posts involved trying to explain to would be rule's smiths that their brilliant ideas perhaps weren't as brilliant as they thought they were.



Oh, definitely. And I agree that there's a good potential for missteps. If a rule exists, I generally prefer to use it. There's a point of diminishing returns, though. I'm pretty good at remembering rules -- probably the best in any group I've been in since college, which is one of the reasons I usually GM. I can still only hold so many rules in my head. Having a GM screen helps, but it's generally just confirmation for the most common rules, anyway. Sometimes, a player will remember a rule differently than me. Since either one of us could be correct, either I make a decision or we pause the game to look it up. Sometimes, I know there's a rule, but I also know that I don't actually remember it. I can either make a decision or pause the game. I have a pretty good track record, but not perfect. I don't mind when a player remembers a rule better than me. I mind it when the game grinds to a halt while we look up a rule that may or may not exist but is almost guaranteed to not affect the outcome of the scene.



> You make it sound like the basic appearance of whether the GM knows what he's doing is a small matter.  What you are talking about is the crux of GM/player trust, and that's the foundation upon which tables are functional rather than dysfunctional.



Not at all. There's a reason I called it out. I think a GM who appears to lack competence probably isn't competent and it does exactly what you're saying. I just didn't belabor the point.

On the other hand, I've had a player who actually remembered some ruling I'd made a couple years before with a different group of characters for something not covered in the rules (this was 3.5, so there weren't a ton of things not covered) that I didn't figure it would ever come up again. When my ruling differed from his recollection, he was seriously aggrieved. I'm honestly not sure whether he remembered correctly or not. Either way, it didn't change the outcome of the action. It just got him slightly closer, but also served to stop the game for several minutes while I tried to figure out what he was on about and we confirmed that there wasn't an official rule or usable guidance.



> Players benefit from a middle ground as well.  Whatever actions or moves you provide the players tend to become implicitly the set of moves that the player feels entitled to offer, and often as not any other moves are never even imagined.  If the rules don't explicitly tell the player, "You can try to trip your opponent!"  or "You can try to take your opponent's weapon from them!" or even "You can try to do things that aren't covered anywhere by these rules!", the players propositions will tend to be very rote, "I attack the X."   The real issue is whether the rules explicitly state that anything not forbidden by the rules is permitted, or whether they imply or even state that anything not permitted by the rules is forbidden.



Agreed on this, as well. I was pretty explicit about that, as well. The only question is whether experienced/expert players still benefit from an abundance of rules. If a player needs rules to let them know they can sneak, try to climb a wall, break down a door, or any number of other things that D&D provides guidance for, I'd say it's pretty clear that they aren't expert players. 

I'd more expect expert players to decide what they want to do, then go looking to see whether the rules cover it. If the rules don't then they either offer up a rule of their own or they ask the GM to come up with something (again, deciding it's not possible is a sign they aren't expert players -- barring things like trying to build a spaceship in D&D, but that's genre convention, not rules). As a GM, I'm fine with either, and make it clear to my 5E players that they're welcome to suggest alternate skills to use for various tasks and the like.



> One of the problem with seemingly elegant systems is that they tend to implicitly or explicitly state that they only cover a very particular sort of game as the only game that should be played.  Whereas a game like AD&D with all its baroque and obscure rules meant that you weren't not playing D&D when you were playing a game of mass combat and dynastic, multigenerational play, where your latest PC was the child of a former adventurer and was concerned with getting a good marriage to strengthen diplomatic ties at court and increase the scope of his feudal holdings.  It meant you were still playing D&D when you're former adventurer bought warehouses, factories, and sailing ships and ran a mercantile cartel, or when you went traipsing around the cosmos dealing with gods and the fate of the universe.  Or, on a smaller scale, they never encourage a player to say something like, "I lock blades with the foe and try to leverage him around so that we have switched places."  (Which, AD&D, with it's explicitly abstract and supposedly 'simple' combat system never provoked as a thought in 99.9% of player's imaginations, and so never occurred in AD&D stories.)
> 
> Rule 'light' systems might be extended to cover things that they don't explicitly cover, assuming the participants ever realize that they can, and are willing to work out how.  It's just generally, they don't, and aren't, and can't.



It's something of a trade-off. I haven't used a D&D mass combat system since the 2E Battlesystem. I don't know that I'd consider those rules to feel much like the rest of D&D, mechanically. Even so, the core resolution mechanics of D&D (roll d20, add a bonus, check DC, optionally role damage) don't really lend themselves to large-scale conflicts. Sure, they can be used that way, but so can the 3d6 of Hero, Fate dice, dice pools for Shadowrun, etc. Just like D&D, you need to add on some additional stats for things. Any of those systems could do so, too. 

But... that gets right back to what I said the weakness of so-called universal systems is: It's not that they can't do something/everything, it's that they often don't have any guidance published to do so. The complexity of D&D is far different than the complexity of, say, Hero System -- which also represent the two major themes in dealing with game complexity. 

D&D manages complexity through a series of exceptions. Every feat, spell, class ability, racial feature, etc. is an exception to the rules. Yes, they still tend to follow the basic resolution mechanics (unless you go back to 1E AD&D, but that's a different matter), but they do what they do because the specific rule trumps the general. They're organized into fairly large-grain chunks that have to be taken as they are. Want only part of a feat, say the cool trick from the skill feats? Tough. You have to take the whole thing... or create a brand new feat that is balanced to handle the fact that you already have expertise in the skill and have maxed out the stat (12th level Rogue at the time of the article being published?). That feat is either a one-off and subject to all the disadvantages around consistency or it needs to get recorded and made part of the "table canon". Look, more bloat. Easy to consume, to a point, but the learning curve for creation is somewhat higher. Ultimately, the bloat will kill the system, IMO, and did so for 3.5.

Hero System, on the other hand, is a toolkit. If someone creates a package of which you only want part, you can see exactly how it was made and what you'd need to swap around to make it work. Sure, you could record it, as an option, but there's not much need to because it's so easy to disassemble and reassemble. The downside is that these sorts of systems tend to be somewhat dogmatic about encouraging everyone to explore their freedom, to the point where you might have a better chance getting a simple, straight, meaningful answer from a politician. GURPS was probably the best at actually detailing stuff out, but the system curdled my blood. Fantasy Hero did fine, and I played a fair amount of it. Again, these systems are absolutely capable of doing this sort of thing. They just don't follow through. So, pretty much the opposite of D&D: Difficult to consume, at least at first, but a much easier learning curve to rolling your own.

The third category is the "rules light" systems, which are almost always also "universal" systems. They take the problems of, say, Hero, and raise them an order of magnitude. As a GM, I'm super excited about the core mechanics of Fate and Savage Worlds. I just don't like that either my players are truly, completely unbounded in terms of ability selection or that I have to do all the frameworking, myself. This isn't because I'm afraid of power levels getting out of hand, but because I'd like to see some sort of consistency in how things like magic work. There are some things that I would actually like to see "menu driven", so to speak. Magic is one of the big ones. Options are good, but being able to select, in addition to create is nice. 

Without the toolkit portion of Hero, you also get the "balance by eyeball" problem that crops up in D&D. I don't think that it's any worse, by any means, than creating new spells, classes, feats, etc. in D&D, but I could see the argument about light systems being more work, if you talk about complexity in terms of too many "menued" options. In that case, Hero System's complexity is definitely a boon, by comparison. If you're talking about baseline complexity and the number of core rules, then I still don't see something like Fate as being particularly more challenging than D&D. It's probably less so, for an experienced, narrativist group. Again, D&D 5E is probably a happy middle ground for the average gamer/group. Pathfinder is probably better for a gamist group.


----------



## mflayermonk (May 1, 2017)

All weapons do 1d6 damage.


----------



## tenkar (May 1, 2017)

As the person that took the Swords & Wizardry ruleset down to four pages with Swords & Wizardry Light, I have my own perspective on this.

For me, I wanted a ruleset that felt like "D&D" to someone who hadn't played an RPG in 20 years while also being a short enough read that a new player would be willing to give it a look. It seems to have found its niche with convention play. Four pages, four races, four classes, three levels and two dice (d6 and a d20)

Frog God Games is distributing the rules for free in Print - they'll even mail it to you for free with other goodies if you are stateside (and there is a PDF as well)

Why free in print? Because anything that excites or brings more players into the hobby helps us all, including the publishers. Maybe if you like it you'll buy their adventures, settings of the S&W Complete rules.

All that being said, light systems aren't for all players nor all groups, and the lighter the system the more the responsibility of the GM shifts from "rules knowledge" to "rules enabling" and filling in the missing gaps.

I happen to prefer my rules systems light and my group has self selected itself in like mind.


----------



## Yaztromo (May 2, 2017)

thzero said:


> Thats junk.  Go to GenCon, most everyone will be there except maybe WotC, and ask them point blank.... "are you trying to scare away possible newcomers?"  I bet the answer is a resounding "no".



Change the question to: "Are more important for you experienced players coming from long roleplay gaming experiences with multiple systems or absolute beginners? Which kind of player do you have more in mind when you design your games?"
Then you will have perhaps a more purposeful answer.


----------



## thzero (May 2, 2017)

Yaztromo said:


> Change the question to: "Are more important for you experienced players coming from long roleplay gaming experiences with multiple systems or absolute beginners? Which kind of player do you have more in mind when you design your games?"
> Then you will have perhaps a more purposeful answer.




Fair enough... it is about how you frame the question of course.  Or you could ask, "Are you expecting more buys from experienced players, or beginners?".


----------



## ArchfiendBobbie (May 2, 2017)

thzero said:


> Fair enough... it is about how you frame the question of course.  Or you could ask, "Are you expecting more buys from experienced players, or beginners?".




It's better to ask, "Are you expecting more newcomers to your game, or more buys from the established fanbase?" The question you asked could be honestly answered "experienced players" without telling you anything about if they're attracting new customers or not.


----------



## thzero (May 2, 2017)

Mercule said:


> The third category is the "rules light" systems, which are almost always also "universal" systems. They take the problems of, say, Hero, and raise them an order of magnitude. As a GM, I'm super excited about the core mechanics of Fate and Savage Worlds. I just don't like that either my players are truly, completely unbounded in terms of ability selection or that I have to do all the frameworking, myself. This isn't because I'm afraid of power levels getting out of hand, but because I'd like to see some sort of consistency in how things like magic work. There are some things that I would actually like to see "menu driven", so to speak. Magic is one of the big ones. Options are good, but being able to select, in addition to create is nice.





Rules light systems aren't necessarily universal.  Often they are very thematic, i.e. gumshoe.  Other times as you point out they are not.

I would not consider SW to be 'rules light'... 'rules medium' maybe.  Ability selection is definitely constrained, and it also has something similar to feats anyways, edges.  The thing that saves it from being more complex is really that its not class based.   I always run with a lot more skills than standard (I like skills) when I use SW.


----------



## Mercule (May 2, 2017)

thzero said:


> Rules light systems aren't necessarily universal.  Often they are very thematic, i.e. gumshoe.  Other times as you point out they are not.
> 
> I would not consider SW to be 'rules light'... 'rules medium' maybe.  Ability selection is definitely constrained, and it also has something similar to feats anyways, edges.  The thing that saves it from being more complex is really that its not class based.   I always run with a lot more skills than standard (I like skills) when I use SW.



Fair enough. Most of my interest is in fantasy, urban fantasy, and sci-fi, so the light systems I've looked at would be largely for those genres.

Also, noted about SW. I had the Explorer's Edition right after it came out, but it disappeared not long afterwards. I read the book, but didn't study it thoroughly and it's been years. My recollection is probably a bit shakier than I'd thought. What I remember is that it looked like a pretty cool, flexible system, but the spells and trappings seemed somewhat limited, coming from D&D's rich magic. My group didn't have any interest in switching, so I didn't replace the book, hoping it'd turn up. I think I've moved since then, so I should just fork over the $10.


----------



## pemerton (May 2, 2017)

Mercule said:


> Every feat, spell, class ability, racial feature, etc. is an exception to the rules. Yes, they still tend to follow the basic resolution mechanics (unless you go back to 1E AD&D, but that's a different matter), but they do what they do because the specific rule trumps the general.



Most spells in D&D _don't_ follow the "basic" resolution mechanics - they tend to be automatically successful rather than requiring some sort of check.

That's one of the most distinctive features of D&D.


----------



## Solomoriah (May 2, 2017)

I can run a fair game with no rules at all.  No, seriously, I've done it.

That's not how I choose to play, though.  Takes too much of my time adjudicating literally everything.

I've also run games with extremely minimal rules, with no complaints from the players.  My old TSGS game has been used several times with PCs occupying index cards (and I realize now I need to try it with sticky notes).  A bit easier, as character generation does not require my attention, but everything else still does.

Basic Fantasy is my sweet spot... enough rules to spark the imagination, not so many as to stifle it, and as the author and rights-holder I get to say no to as many supplements as I want.  But a big part of why that works is because we *took money out of the equation*.

These are games, people.  OUR games.  Seeing them as "products" cheapens them.  I'm not saying that buying a game is bad, but rather, that a game seen by its designers as a true labor of love rather than a product to be marketed and sold is a beautiful thing, able to be just the size the designers want without need for supplements to boost sales.


----------



## JohnnyZemo (May 2, 2017)

S'mon said:


> 30 minutes of Googling reveals no reference to this from Paizo. The Starfinder APs will be bimonthly, but all the Pathfinder AP references on Paizo's site still refer to them as monthly. So they are actually ramping up production overall.




No, I think they adjust their release schedule to capitalize on the products that are selling well, like any sensible business would.

I checked a Pathfinder wiki that lists all their module releases, and back in 2007 and 2008 they were releasing 10 modules a year. They actually released 20 modules between June of 2007 and December of 2008, which is about one a month.

By 2014, this was down to just four modules a year. Ditto for 2015. In 2016 they released five modules, but so far in 2017, they have not released any. Cradle of Night is scheduled for later this year.

They've expanded into other areas, like comic books and card games. But their module line is on life support at this point.


----------



## J.L. Duncan (May 2, 2017)

Just coming back...

Congrats on the article Lew. Talk about a reaction!


----------



## S'mon (May 2, 2017)

Moravave said:


> I like to DM like I'm the priest, not God. The rules are God, they are the final word. I think my players appreciate that as well. I can make a judgement call to move stuff along but if we choose to take the time, the actual rules answer will always be waiting for us in the books. As a group we love looking something up and seeing the way the rules solve the problem - we're all gamers, this is part of the fun for us, working within the system.
> 
> I'm currently looking to run some B/X and 1e for nostalgia purposes but one thing I'll miss about 5e when I do is all of those clean, easy to find answers. 5e has done a very good job of being both light and robust at the same exact time. The more I play it the more I appreciate this.




My own relationship to the rules is more Warlock than Cleric.


----------



## Campbell (May 2, 2017)

Doctor Futurity said:


> It seems to me that "complexity" and "choice" often get conflated in discussions like this. With D&D 5E, for example, it is (to me) inarguable that the game is low complexity: but it has a high degree of choice, most of which is divorced to some degree from the complexity factor. 3rd edition and Pathfinder by contrast often added complexity through choice as part of the design decision....so what 5E did in this regard was figure out a way to continue to offer a wealth of options for people without ramping up the complexity in the process. Adding a new class in 5E shouldn't make the underlying design/mechanics more complex in 5E...and if it does, then you're doing it wrong.
> 
> This is one of the reasons I feel 5E is doing so well. Sure, it doesn't have as much choice as 3rd edition did.....but it does offer you a really compelling range of options in a smaller package, with the guarantee (so far) that those options won't increase the overall complexity of the experience.
> 
> I also think Savage Worlds is the same way, with a core experience that (in play) demonstrates how damned smooth and easy the game is. It's learning curve is very slightly higher than D&D 5E, but once learned it is like learning to ride a bike: you never forget. That plus the appeal of an "all in one" experience for $10 is kind of amazing.




3e is a game that had an incredible amount of choices to make during character design, but that same emphasis on design tended to curtail meaningful decision making during Actual Play. A significant part of the reason I am developing an appreciation for 5e as someone who was a 4e standout for a long while is the focus 5e puts on playing the game and decisions made in the heat of the moment. This is felt in the reduced emphasis on spell preparation, spells that can be cast in different spell slots for increased effect, feats that are less biased towards particular combat options, more broadly useful skills, and a focus on more active abilities in lieu of passive ones.

When it comes to complexity there are plenty of rich interactions designed into the system that provide room for more skilled and less skilled play. It's just less about stacking numerical bonuses and more about rich synergies of fairly simple systems when taken on their own. The math is not as blatant or obvious at a glance. You have to play and adapt to get at it.


----------



## Jhaelen (May 2, 2017)

I certainly agree that there is a place for simpler RPGs. I recall being asked by a bunch of youngsters at one of our boardgame meetings, if I could introduce them to D&D - but they only had an hour, so it better be quick! Without any preparation and complete newbies, that's a daunting task, so I regretfully declined. But I also told them if they didn't insist on D&D being used as a system, there'd be better options to get an introduction into roleplaying, if they were really interested.


lewpuls said:


> In board and card games, we’ve seen significant “dumbing down” of hobby games in the past decade to accommodate the influx of new gamers as the hobby gets larger, who are often from “party game” roots. Games on average are much simpler and considerably shorter.



I'm not sure if this is a trend I'm seeing, too. In fact I have the opposite impression: There's a much more widespread acceptance of 'advanced' and even complex board games in recent years. Also there's a quite siginificant trend towards board games supporting solo play (i.e. as an alternative to video games), and high-quality game components (artwork, minis, etc.).

I do agree, though, that there is less of an interest in very long games, and I believe this is one of the most important driving forces in improving on existing board games:
Gamers would like to be able to complete games in a shorter time in order to play _more_ games in the same amount of time, but definitely not at the cost of compromising on complexity!
And there you have the design challenge for board game developers: How do you implement a strategically and/or tactically intriguing game with high replayability and an interesting theme with a minimum of setup, downtime and book-keeping overhead?

But I could be totally mislead about these trends since my main source for board game news is BoardGameGeek, which is obviously a meeting point for the more 'serious' gamers. Still, I regularly introduce new players to modern board games, and haven't noticed any increasing interest in simple games, except as a 'filler' when there's little time left or to pass time while we wait for other players to arrive.


----------



## Hussar (May 2, 2017)

I still stand by my original point - rules light systems rely far more on the GM than rules heavy systems in order to produce a particular experience at the table.  Take a game like FATE.  Now, that's a pretty rules light system.  Thing is, there  are so many areas where the DM needs to step in and adjudicate and arbitrate resolutions.  Which, if you have a good DM, means that the game will run fantastic.  Probably, depending on the experience you want, better than a rules heavy system.  It's faster, cleaner and gets out of the way more.

However, and this is the big caveat, if the GM isn't on the ball, the system gets extremely frustrating.  Misalignments of play styles at the table get exacerbated to a much greater degree because the player is expecting different results than what the GM is giving.  And without a strong rules framework to rely on, there's nothing to appeal to.  

Add in vague writing (which appears in any RPG) and you wind up spending more time talking about the game than actually playing it.

Look, I love rules light games.  I do.  I would love to play FATE or GUMSHOE, or Dread or any of a host of other light RPG's out there all the time.  But, should we embrace rules light as the "better" entrance into the hobby?  I'm not convinced.  There's a reason that the process of getting into the hobby usually starts with things like D&D and then moves into more indie game, like, say, Blades in the Dark.  These rules lighter games are a lot harder to run successfully.  Hand a 12 year old a copy of the 5e basic rules and a couple of the Adventure League modules and you're off and running.  Hand that same 12 year old a copy of FATE and it's going to be a train wreck.


----------



## Von Ether (May 2, 2017)

Mercule said:


> What I remember is that it looked like a pretty cool, flexible system, but the spells and trappings seemed somewhat limited, coming from D&D's rich magic. My group didn't have any interest in switching, so I didn't replace the book, hoping it'd turn up. I think I've moved since then, so I should just fork over the $10.




According to SW design philosophy, "rich" can equal "redundant." That's why it has one healing power (instead of three or more) and while damage comes in different template shapes (cone, AOE, blast) but Burning hands and Acid Spray are Trappings of the same power, not two separate powers. (And that's why if a sneaky SW GM knows they are getting players who come from a DnD background usually cut and paste powers into a new document with the trappings they want already applied.)

Getting back on track for the thread; Sometimes designers create rules for the sheer demand of it, regardless of the lure of money. 

The Mind Reading power was a second edition SW power that Shane fought hard against. He didn't see a need for it, mostly because his own style of gaming avoids telepathy since it's a problematic power. But his customers demanded it. (He originally whipped it up on t a forum thread as an unofficial power to placate people, but it stuck.)

On an even bigger scale, Troll Lord Games originally announced a Castle Keepers Guide simply because DnD comes in three books, but quickly backpedaled on it as they thought it wouldn't hold anything essential to Castles and Crusades play.

But fans kept clamoring for a CKG with additional (though optional) rules for _years_! TLG held firm that the CKG announcement was a mistake and they had no real plans to make such a product because any GM could easily tweak the game as they saw fit. (These guys were OSR before there was an OSR.)

But eventually they did it after reading forums and emails about how some GMs didn't have the time, or confidence, to do so and wanted a TLGs product to point them in the right direction. 

I don't know how well it's done for them, but they keep printing it to this day.


----------



## S'mon (May 2, 2017)

Hussar said:


> However, and this is the big caveat, if the GM isn't on the ball, the system gets extremely frustrating.  Misalignments of play styles at the table get exacerbated to a much greater degree because the player is expecting different results than what the GM is giving.  And without a strong rules framework to rely on, there's nothing to appeal to.




IME in a rules light or rules absent game (trad RPG not Indie) the GM presents the world, players say what they do, GM adjudicates the result. Players normally understand they are playing in the GM's world. As a newbie GM 
12 years old GMing Fighting Fantasy, I don't recall players (fellow 12 year old boys at boarding school) ever arguing with me about my adjudication. I never really encountered player arguments until many years later running 3e D&D ca 2008, and that was often a sign of highly dysfunctional players.

Like I said, different worlds.


----------



## Hussar (May 2, 2017)

S'mon said:


> IME in a rules light or rules absent game (trad RPG not Indie) the GM presents the world, players say what they do, GM adjudicates the result. Players normally understand they are playing in the GM's world. As a newbie GM
> 12 years old GMing Fighting Fantasy, I don't recall players (fellow 12 year old boys at boarding school) ever arguing with me about my adjudication. I never really encountered player arguments until many years later running 3e D&D ca 2008, and that was often a sign of highly dysfunctional players.
> 
> Like I said, different worlds.




Hang on a sec.  What is this Fighting Fantasy?  I thought that was the Steve Jackson choose your own adventure books that added in some dice.  Sounds like fun.  Was there an actual game based on this?  Or was this something different.


----------



## Doctor Futurity (May 2, 2017)

Campbell said:


> 3e is a game that had an incredible amount of choices to make during character design, but that same emphasis on design tended to curtail meaningful decision making during Actual Play. A significant part of the reason I am developing an appreciation for 5e as someone who was a 4e standout for a long while is the focus 5e puts on playing the game and decisions made in the heat of the moment. This is felt in the reduced emphasis on spell preparation, spells that can be cast in different spell slots for increased effect, feats that are less biased towards particular combat options, more broadly useful skills, and a focus on more active abilities in lieu of passive ones.
> 
> When it comes to complexity there are plenty of rich interactions designed into the system that provide room for more skilled and less skilled play. It's just less about stacking numerical bonuses and more about rich synergies of fairly simple systems when taken on their own. The math is not as blatant or obvious at a glance. You have to play and adapt to get at it.




Very true.


----------



## S'mon (May 2, 2017)

Hussar said:


> Hang on a sec.  What is this Fighting Fantasy?  I thought that was the Steve Jackson choose your own adventure books that added in some dice.  Sounds like fun.  Was there an actual game based on this?  Or was this something different.




https://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Fan...ng+fantasy+the+introductory+role-playing+game

$5.58 on amazon.com inc postage.
It's a simple introductory RPG based on the gamebooks. Bad cover art, otherwise great. You 
want "Out of the Pit" to get the most from it.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 2, 2017)

Hussar said:


> I still stand by my original point - rules light systems rely far more on the GM than rules heavy systems in order to produce a particular experience at the table.  Take a game like FATE.  Now, that's a pretty rules light system.  Thing is, there  are so many areas where the DM needs to step in and adjudicate and arbitrate resolutions.  Which, if you have a good DM, means that the game will run fantastic.



Ookay.  I'm not sure I buy that FATE is all that rules-lite, but I've only played the Dresden Files version (it seemed like a thick enough tome that we spent enough time consulting at the table) and read through Spirit of the Century, so maybe other FATE games are as lite as it's predecessor, FUDGE, seemed to be.

OTOH, a rules-heavy game can require just as much DM intervention - to adjudicate rules rather than fill in blanks, or in the case of 5e, both to adjudicate unclear rules, and to fill in and make rulings.



> Look, I love rules light games.  I do.  I would love to play FATE or GUMSHOE, or Dread or any of a host of other light RPG's out there all the time.  But, should we embrace rules light as the "better" entrance into the hobby?  I'm not convinced.



 Maybe 'limited scope' or 'rules-easy' would be better way to put it?   

I don't think 'rules-lite' means what we think it means, anyway.  People point to B/X or other old editions of D&D, or even to 5e, as 'rules lite' (compared to 3.5, they're fewer books, anyway, but they're also even less consistent/coherent rules, even if there's less physical tonnage of them).   



> There's a reason that the process of getting into the hobby usually starts with things like D&D



 Yes, there is a reason:  people thinking about trying the hobby have heard of D&D, and may not even be aware there are any other RPGs to start with.


----------



## aramis erak (May 3, 2017)

Hussar said:


> Hang on a sec.  What is this Fighting Fantasy?  I thought that was the Steve Jackson choose your own adventure books that added in some dice.  Sounds like fun.  Was there an actual game based on this?  Or was this something different.




The FF books have character generation, combat, and non-combat task mechanics. Many people used them as a full fledged RPG. So much so, that SJ & IL released them as a core rulebook.

The "Advanced Fighting Fantasy" system is pretty light - on par with Moldvay Basic - but not class based. Very flexible... can't say I've played it, but I did just grab the AFF bundle.


----------



## aramis erak (May 3, 2017)

Tony Vargas said:


> Ookay.  I'm not sure I buy that FATE is all that rules-lite, but I've only played the Dresden Files version (it seemed like a thick enough tome that we spent enough time consulting at the table) and read through Spirit of the Century, so maybe other FATE games are as lite as it's predecessor, FUDGE, seemed to be.




Dresden's a pretty BAD example for Fate.  About 60% of the two massive tomes is setting material; about 25% is specific-to-Dresden mechanics. Dresden's  a good game, but much crunchier than most fate implementations. Go look instead at Fate Core, instead. (It's PWYW at DriveThru, so no financial risk.) 

Fate's excessively wordy for what it does, too. 

On a roughly 1-5 point scale, I'd put Fate overall at a 2.5; Core rules are 2, but worked setting corebooks tend towards 3.


----------



## Ratskinner (May 3, 2017)

Tony Vargas said:


> Ookay.  I'm not sure I buy that FATE is all that rules-lite, but I've only played the Dresden Files version (it seemed like a thick enough tome that we spent enough time consulting at the table) and read through Spirit of the Century, so maybe other FATE games are as lite as it's predecessor, FUDGE, seemed to be.




I like Fate a lot, but I don't consider it rules-lite. I would actually argue that the Fate Core engine is significantly more complicated than 5e's core mechanics. Its all the "extras" that come wrapped into 5e that make it appear more complicated.

What I mean by that is that Fate Core doesn't specify for you things like Races, Magic/Spells, setting-specific Skills, special Equipment, cybernetics, etc. You can certainly play Fate just fine without specifying those things ahead of time*, but they can be a big part of enforcing a setting during play. Strip those things away from 5e and I think what's left of 5e is simpler than Fate Core. For example, imagine I want to pick a lock. In 5e, its just a roll to pick the lock. In Fate, I might be picking the lock as either an _Overcome Obstacle_ roll or a _Create Advantage_ roll, which resolve differently and have differently mechanical consequences as the game progresses. (I can't figure out a way that it could be an _Attack _or _Defend _roll, but hey, maybe those, as well.) Similarly, while Fate's Zones are in some ways simpler than grid movement, they aren't simpler than 5e's default of just plain movement of X feet, to my eyes.

 Most of what we think of as rules "weight" for D&D appears, to me, to be the added heft of dealing with all those spells, class abilities, special conditions, etc. which serve to create the (more specific than we give it credit for) D&D "setting". Many people on many threads have noted that D&D has created its own sub-genre of fantasy. If/When you add all that type of material back into Fate, to enforce such a setting, you can get a very hefty rule system indeed. (The heft proportional to the degree of specificity.) 

My $.02, anyway.

*Mostly by wrapping those things into the aspects and the way aspects function, IME.


----------



## Caliburn101 (May 4, 2017)

Have a simple set of core rules with all the add-ons being character and monster ability and spell choices which still use the core mechanic but increase choice and diversity without mechanically complicating the game...

... simples...


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 4, 2017)

Ratskinner said:


> I like Fate a lot, but I don't consider it rules-lite. I would actually argue that the Fate Core engine is significantly more complicated than 5e's core mechanics.



 The core mechanic of d20 is the eponymous, 'roll a d20,' and add a modifier vs a DC.  It's possible to be even simpler than that (roll d6, 4+ succeeds, for instance), but not a /lot/ simpler.    Doesn't strike me as terribly meaningful, though.  FATE and the SRD/OGL version of d20 are open-source games, not just their core mechanics, and d20 has plenty of complexity even in just the SRD (or one of the three SRDs, I guess it is, now).



> Most of what we think of as rules "weight" for D&D appears, to me, to be the added heft of dealing with all those spells, class abilities, special conditions, etc. which serve to create the (more specific than we give it credit for) D&D "setting"... many people on many threads have noted that D&D has created its own sub-genre of fantasy.



 D&D didn't successfully model a pre-existing sub-genre of fantasy (or science fiction, or science fantasy), though the contemporaneous works of Karl Edward Wagner, which also display the odd mix of sci-fi, fantasy, and Lovecraft, and feature a cynical, almost murder-hobo'ing, protagonist, Kane, were sure close in retrospect.


----------



## Celebrim (May 4, 2017)

Tony Vargas said:


> The core mechanic of d20 is the eponymous, 'roll a d20,' and add a modifier vs a DC.  It's possible to be even simpler than that (roll d6, 4+ succeeds, for instance), but not a /lot/ simpler.   *Doesn't strike me as terribly meaningful, though.*  FATE and the SRD/OGL version of d20 are open-source games, not just their core mechanics, and d20 has plenty of complexity even in just the SRD (or one of the three SRDs, I guess it is, now).




I still maintain that the basic question is meaningless, precisely because of the issue you are touching on here.  You correctly state that the core mechanics of a game can be extremely simple, and yet the rules of the game can be extremely complex.

I'd maintain that the reason D&D's rules are complex is the extensive number of cases and scenarios that it believes needs to explicitly be modeled because they 'matter' and the results of a player interacting with that element of the fiction both matter and should be fairly arbitrated (as by a neutral referee).  D&D's rules started very simple and organically evolved to a complex state quite quickly after the game was invented precisely because of these two unstated assumptions.  And perusing the rules of D&D encourages the players of the game (including the game master) to think about the game in those terms.

If you have a 'rules light' system, but the participants in the game think about the fictional state as mattering and requiring fair arbitration, then the game isn't going to stay 'rules light' for long.  Simply by thinking about the game in that manner, the GM will almost be forced to create rulings which will evolve in to de facto rules, that eventually will if they were ever compiled be an enormous document.  

Some people make the mistake of thinking that rules that aren't compiled aren't actually rules, and that if they exist only in head space, then the game is still lightweight, but I think it's pretty easy to see that even with a game like D&D rules for the most part exist only in head space and the only real difference is how you go about looking them up when they are missing from your head space.  

That's why any game system that features Rule Zero can't be said to be "Rules Light".   Rule Zero inherently makes the rules infinitely extensible.   Board Games are 'rules light'.   Chess, Settlers of Cataan, Mice & Mystics are 'rules light'.  The referee is superfluous in those games because the rules set is closed and there is no need for inventing new rules.   RPG's expect to need new rules all the time, which is one of the reasons that they have a rules generating engine - the Game Master.   The only real difference is how complete the rules attempt to be on paper.  

As such, the whole question of whether FATE or D20 is heavier is not one that I think even makes sense, much less has an objective answer.  Both systems attempt to be quite complete, and the more complete a FUDGE based game will attempt to be, the bigger it will get.  And it's almost invariable that any designer playtesting a FUDGE based game will feel the need to extend it to cover the cases that they wished they'd covered in an earlier iteration.


----------



## Igwilly (May 7, 2017)

I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I think the essential word to understand “complex” games is options.
People want options. Not only that, people want their chosen options to be special.
Let’s look at an example: In AD&D 2e, the Gladiator actually has a few kits and one entire class in Dark Sun of their own. One could use a generic warrior class and choose this flavor, but would that choice be special? In a class-less game (or one with few classes), does simply describing a Gladiator feels like it’s different from any other warrior? Or do you need a special option just for them?
That may also explain why there’re so many different systems. You can GM a Mecha game with an anime-based system, but using a Mecha system would give the players a “unique” experience. You can GM a steampunk game with a generic system, but using a specific steampunk system has more “specialness”.
In addition, I think one thing people need to get about having more options: the complexity does not increase with more splatbooks/options. Because they are optional. One doesn’t need them to actually run a table with the system. They only come in if GM and players are interested. You can, in fact, run a game with just 8 classes. Supplemental material adds only that, options. It may seem to people that you need “all the books” to play the game, but you don’t. Me? I just like having tons of options.
Sure, buying all of them is expensive. They’re not meant to casuals, and considerable money is needed. But that’s ok, because there are people who want that and devote more time to this game. People who like their game simple have their piece of cake, too (for much less money, in fact). Your game doesn’t change.


----------



## lewpuls (May 7, 2017)

Well, while not trying to pick out all of the really long comments, I've seen 603, 605, 713, and 1,320 word comments, all longer than my original post.


I think the fundamental roles in RPGs are wizard, divine (cleric), and fighter.  With fighters having various combinations of strength and stealth (Fafrhd and Gray Mouser). I don't see a reason to classify rogues separately.


(Actually, to get really simple, I eliminate classes entirely. What skills you choose (and some are mutually exclusive) determines what you are and can do.)




> Hussar: Oh, that's crap. I'm sorry, but, that's complete crap. Back in the day, groups often had 1 PHB and 1 DMG. The idea that they've been trained by video games for games to be free is a load of hooey. Casual players who never buy anything have made up a majority of players since day 1.



Hussar, I started playing D&D at age 25 (when you were three years old), and had been playing other kinds of games long before that. I'll rely on my experience (which includes a lot of experience teaching younger adults full time), my knowledge of the game industry as a whole, and my experience (starting 37 or so years ago) as a published board game designer, and disagree completely with you about who and what is "complete crap."




Zurg, I do not say whether simpler or more complex are easier to GM; only that prospective GMs, faced with the more complex, will often decide not to GM, or faced with simpler or more complex, will usually choose simpler.



Funny thing about the reaction, J. L. D.  I thought it had died at 31 comments, and didn't look for most of the week, then found 91. Heavens.


----------



## Hussar (May 7, 2017)

> Hussar, I started playing D&D at age 25 (when you were three years old), and had been playing other kinds of games long before that. I'll rely on my experience (which includes a lot of experience teaching younger adults full time), my knowledge of the game industry as a whole, and my experience (starting 37 or so years ago) as a published board game designer, and disagree completely with you about who and what is "complete crap."
> 
> Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ilemma-of-the-Simple-RPG/page10#ixzz4gMIl7yRJ




Really?  In your experience every player at the table buys a PHB?  The majority of the time?  That certainly hasn't been my experience, nor is it the commonly recounted experiences of pretty much every industry individual for years.  "Only GM's buy books" has been a truism since day 1.  Heck, it took 2e before you saw game publishers shift to start specifically targeting players over GM's.  Prior, in virtually every RPG system, you had you core game, and then every supplement was geared towards the GM.

And, IMO, I'd say it wasn't until d20 and 3e that we saw consistent targeting of players.  Even in 2e, the overwhelming number of supplements were still geared towards DM's.  Sure, you had the Complete guides, but, for every Complete Guide, you had setting books, monster books, and adventures in at least equal numbers.  

So, yeah, I'll stand by the idea that the notion that "games should be free" is hardly a new thing for RPG's.  



> I think the fundamental roles in RPGs are wizard, divine (cleric), and fighter. With fighters having various combinations of strength and stealth (Fafrhd and Gray Mouser). I don't see a reason to classify rogues separately.
> 
> 
> (Actually, to get really simple, I eliminate classes entirely. What skills you choose (and some are mutually exclusive) determines what you are and can do.)
> ...




Is that actually simpler though?  I've never found proficiency based games to be any simpler than a class based one.  I've actually seen far more complicated skill based systems - HERO, GURPS, Rolemaster - than D&D.  

I guess the question in my mind is, what do you mean by simple vs complex?  A class system where you have virtually no choices at any given level, like Basic/Expert D&D for example, would seem to be a fair bit simpler than a system where you have to make choices every level for what gains your character makes.  Which would seem to have several implications further down the line.  For example, in a skill based system, adventure design gets a bit trickier because you cannot presume what the group will have.  Whereas in a class system, so long as a given class is present, you can make all sorts of assumptions.  The more common the class, the more you can make that presumption.


----------



## Celebrim (May 7, 2017)

lewpuls said:


> Hussar, I started playing D&D at age 25 (when you were three years old...




I'm not generally one for defending Hussar, but he sure seems to have called the "get off my lawn" aspect of this thread correctly.



> I think the fundamental roles in RPGs are wizard, divine (cleric), and fighter...




Preach that OD&D religion; there is only one true RPG.

But you lost me when you claimed skill based systems were less complex than class based ones.


----------



## Greenstone.Walker (May 11, 2017)

I think you are giving too much credit to publishers and manufacturers and retailers.

If manufacturers were pushing the more expensive products (more moving parts, more distinct shapes, more manufacturing steps) then no-one would be playing checkers or go; they would be all be playing chess.

After all, a chess set is more expensive to make than a checkers set (5 distinct pieces in two colours compared to one piece in two colours), and its rules are certainly more crunchy, yet people still buy and play checkers. The same argument applies to games like reversi and backgammon and mancala, and even tiddly-winks.

The short answer is, sometimes you want to play a long, rules-heavy game and sometimes you don't.

Additionally, the simple, rules-light games sometimes take a lifetime to master. For example, go. One piece, two colours, a simple board with a grid. It doesn't get much non-crunchy than that.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 11, 2017)

The choice in favored complexity level depends greatly on what aspects of play are preferred. Mechanical options in great quantity rarely add that much flavor to a game. They are more often simple rules widgets used to build a better mousetrap and cause characters to resemble magic decks. It is fascinating to hear how such options are supposedly there for the sake of variety, but in reality all such options are quickly sorted into winning and losing propositions so that the majority of characters of the same class end up being fairly identical mechanically speaking, once the cream of the options rises to the top. 

So option complexity for the sake of variety is kind of an illusion.


----------



## aramis erak (May 14, 2017)

lewpuls said:


> Thanks for the comments. Keep in mind, folks, I am editorially constrained to 500 words. If I had a thousand, I’d have more thoroughly addressed/explained many of the points people are making or questioning (or explaining, thanks). Of course.
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to know what proportion of, say, D&D revenue comes from additional rules, what proportion from settings, what proportion from adventures. I don’t know enough to say which is the “optimal” one, though one commenter thinks he/she knows. If, as another says, one of the 5e rulebooks is #33 seller on Amazon for all books, I suspect  the base rules themselves generate the most income of all.
> ...




Lew, much as I respect your corpus of work (Just reread some of it in Dragon)...

I think you're misreading the evidence.

D&D 5E is simpler than 3E or 4E... or Pathfinder ... but it's still mid-complexity.
There are a LOT of new players coming in via D&D and Pathfinder, and Star Wars. Top 3 sellers. 
All three have beginner boxes. All three have medium to medium-heavy (3-4 on a 5 point scale) rules, and plenty of newbs. And print-runs in the 40K copies or more range.

The hypervocal crowd are those buying the under 4K print-run indie games with ultra-light rules. I don't see nor hear people talking about them on social media anywhere near as much as the heavier ones, and then, far fewer of those talking about them are talking of them as introductions to the hobby. 

Most of the kids I've run recently for are dissatisfied with the lower complexity systems. Even the ones who need a calculator for D&D... after about 6 months of weekly sessions, they've memorized their addition facts up to the sums in the low 30's... because the more they use it, the more they remember it.


----------



## aramis erak (May 16, 2017)

Hussar said:


> Really?  In your experience every player at the table buys a PHB?  The majority of the time?  That certainly hasn't been my experience, nor is it the commonly recounted experiences of pretty much every industry individual for years.  "Only GM's buy books" has been a truism since day 1.  Heck, it took 2e before you saw game publishers shift to start specifically targeting players over GM's.  Prior, in virtually every RPG system, you had you core game, and then every supplement was geared towards the GM.
> 
> And, IMO, I'd say it wasn't until d20 and 3e that we saw consistent targeting of players.  Even in 2e, the overwhelming number of supplements were still geared towards DM's.  Sure, you had the Complete guides, but, for every Complete Guide, you had setting books, monster books, and adventures in at least equal numbers.




Been mulling it over... since release of 5E, my experience with AL play is less than half, more more than one-third, of AL players buy the PHB within the first year.

In my games, all editions since 1981, it's been that way - including play of AD&D2 under the Retail Play - about 2/5 of players have a PHB; half of those who don't live with someone who does. I'm seeing much the same in 5E. If anything , I'm seeing MORE with PHB's than prior.

My last 2 D&D groups (running concurrently through last month) Discounting me as I GM'd:
1) GD, SB, EO, W, SA, BH, and C - GD, SB, EO, W and BH had PHB's BH and I were the only over-30 players.
2) J, G, K, C1, C2, C3, E - G, C1, C2 and E have PHB's; J and C3 used the SRD and the PBR instead.

My prior group - my wife, kids, a V and her BF, and a mutual friend of theirs and mine - I had a PHB, V had a PHB. 3 households, 2 books, 6 players.

Other game systems, yeah, most of the players leave the book to the GM. Casual players, again, sure. But NOT D&D amongst the west US coast gamers I've talked to and/or played with.


----------



## GrahamWills (May 17, 2017)

Hussar said:


> I still stand by my original point - rules light systems rely far more on the GM than rules heavy systems in order to produce a particular experience at the table.  Take a game like FATE.  Now, that's a pretty rules light system.  Thing is, there  are so many areas where the DM needs to step in and adjudicate and arbitrate resolutions.  Which, if you have a good DM, means that the game will run fantastic.  Probably, depending on the experience you want, better than a rules heavy system.  It's faster, cleaner and gets out of the way more.
> 
> However, and this is the big caveat, if the GM isn't on the ball, the system gets extremely frustrating.
> 
> Look, I love rules light games.  I do.  I would love to play FATE or GUMSHOE, or Dread or any of a host of other light RPG's out there all the time.  But, should we embrace rules light as the "better" entrance into the hobby?  I'm not convinced.  There's a reason that the process of getting into the hobby usually starts with things like D&D and then moves into more indie game, like, say, Blades in the Dark.  These rules lighter games are a lot harder to run successfully.  Hand a 12 year old a copy of the 5e basic rules and a couple of the Adventure League modules and you're off and running.  Hand that same 12 year old a copy of FATE and it's going to be a train wreck.




Curious. My experience is pretty much the opposite. By far all the worst experiences I have had have been with heavy systems. If I had to list my 30 worst experiences (and I might be able to!) I would expect 25-29 of them to be rules heavy systems. I have been running 4e recently for a group of young adults (8-15 years) and, frankly, even though I know 4e inside out, the heaviness of the rules gets in the way. A lot. 

Focusing specifically on new players experience, here is what I have seen, as a new player and GM and as an experienced player/GM working with new people: Rules heavy systems (as in, systems with lots of rules) are not a good intro to the hobby. Here are some observations:


 In a rules heavy game, when people don't know something, the game stops and there is a 10 minute search and discussion before the situation is resolved. It is usually resolved correctly, but very often the complexity of the rules means that you don't even get that benefit. I cannot tell you the number of times a 3.5 game has ground to a halt because a new guy does something that appears very natural like grabbing someone to stop them attacking, and we have to abandon playing the game to play "explain the rules". A good GM will just hand-wave and carry on, but that's exactly a rules light approach. In the rules-light system, the GM knows there isn't a rule, so makes a call and moves on. They may spend a while thinking and it may be a bad call, but the overall experience is far, far better than the rules-search. 
 In a rules-have game, I allot 30 minutes to explaining a character sheet. In FATE, I allot 5 minutes. During play it takes a significant amount of time even to FIND things on a rules-heavy character sheet (quick check -- where's initiative on your favorite heavy system? -- very week I run 4E, this gets asked. Every. Single. Week.) 
 In a rules-heavy system, character creation requires effort. So much so that I have *never* had a good experience where we rolled up characters at a convention session. Near the top of my worst-ever games would be the 6 hour Aces and Eights game that featured 4 hours character creation and 2 hours combat, of which 1 hour was looking up rules. That does not happen in rules-light systems. I've rolled up full characters for Fiasco, Fudge, Hillfolk, and "finished off" characters in 13th Age, FATE and other mid-weight systems. Many people really like to create a character. Much harder to work out which of 100+ feats to take than write down a descriptive aspect. 
 Rules trump GMs. Especially for beginning GMs. If you are splaying in a rules light system, then the players default mode is to *trust the GM* and look to support them. If the GM looks at the battle and says "I guess the low-light should make it harder to hit" then in a rules-light game players suggest ways that the GM's vision might be true: "You could invoke it for defense", or "it makes all vision related tasks one step harder". In a rules-heavy game, a very common response is from the rules expert who belittles the GM letting them known that within 10 squares low-light doesn't affect to-hit ratings. He's not wrong, but because the player knows the rules, they have more influence over the game than the GM. I'm not saying that player isn't a dick, or that people don't do that in rules-light games, but it happens a LOT in rules-heavy games. Not so much rules-lawyering as rules-one-upmanship. 
 As sated before, we must consider RULE ZERO. In a rules heavy game, rule zero is the rule of last resort. It is seen as a form of failure -- the game has failed to be complete and so we must fall back to imagination. Because the goal of having lots of rules is (at least in a good system)  to cover many situations, I really feel that in those games rule zero feels like an admission of failure. In rules light systems, rule zero is so much more likely to occur that it has good support. Take the case of a player using a shield a sled. In the rules heavy game, you have a lot of choices -- in D&D I might go acrobatics, or athletics, or endurance and I have not a ton of guidance on the difficulty levels. I'm on my own to make up a rule in a system that judges a GM on how well they follow the rules. In Fate Accelerated, even a novice GM is going to get something reasonable rapidly: Rules light systems provide support for rule zero much more at the same level as they do for the rest of the game, instead of treating it like a rules failure.

Honestly, I cannot support the contention that rules-heavy systems are easier for new GMs. I think the basic issue I have is that by implicitly elevating the rules over the GM, it undermines the new GM and forces them to check with their superior all the time, and provides both a measure and a stick by which the players can rate and berate their GM. I find that unhelpful. 

Or, thinking of it another way, if everything goes well, any system is good. If you assume there are issues with a new GM, would you prefer to spend 4 hours looking up rules, or 4 hours playing a wildly inconsistent game with odd interpretations. 

My answer is the second, by a lot. I'd prefer to actually play a Captain America who the GM has decided wrongly that the shield is a useless attack, rather than spend the time working out that I need to take the Heavy Shield feat to use it, then the Thrown Shield Feat to throw it, and cross-reference that with the thrown weapons (improvised) table, adding a +4 bonus for the heavy shield to the attack, but NOT to the damage.


----------



## Celebrim (May 17, 2017)

GrahamWills said:


> [*] In a rules heavy game, when people don't know something, the game stops and there is a 10 minute search and discussion before the situation is resolved.




Simply put, a GM should know the rules sufficient that this doesn't happen or he shouldn't run the system.  If you are frequently doing a rules search something is wrong.   Read the damn rule book.  Then do it again.  System mastery is a prerequisite of GMing.  And even if you run into a situation where the rules don't adequately cover the situation, you should be able to run within about 2 minutes of being confronted with a rules challenge.

The problem with a rules light system is that it ALL THE TIME confronts the GM with a situation which the rules don't adequately cover.  This to me involves more head space than having a system that at least tries to provide answer, and generally slows down my game less.   Rules heavy isn't the same as process heavy.  You can have lots of rules, but they all specify basically a single dice roll to resolve them.   That's rules heavy but process light.   



> [*] In a rules-heavy system, character creation requires effort. So much so that I have *never* had a good experience where we rolled up characters at a convention session. Near the top of my worst-ever games would be the 6 hour Aces and Eights game that featured 4 hours character creation and 2 hours combat, of which 1 hour was looking up rules. That does not happen in rules-light systems. I've rolled up full characters for Fiasco, Fudge, Hillfolk, and "finished off" characters in 13th Age, FATE and other mid-weight systems. Many people really like to create a character. Much harder to work out which of 100+ feats to take than write down a descriptive aspect.




Oh good grief yes.  Rules light systems are much much better than rules heavy systems at dealing with one off play.  Indeed, I consider this exactly what they are designed for.  There are lots of games that are way too light for me to ever consider running a full traditional campaign in the system, but which I think would be a blast to play for 3-4 hours.   I have no idea why you'd consider a process heavy, rules heavy game like Aces and Eights, however brilliant it is, for a convention setting.



> Rules trump GMs.




Many of your objections seem to be with crappy GMs rather than the systems themselves.  I assure you, no one bullies me with rules - ever.  For one thing, I make all the rules.  If a player quotes rules to me, it's my rules and I wrote them for a purpose.   Even if they are RAW, if I haven't changed them, chances are I want to abide by them.   The rules are my vision of the game.  Forgetting the rules is a faux pas I want corrected.



> As sated before, we must consider RULE ZERO. In a rules heavy game, rule zero is the rule of last resort.




Yes, because it is the single heaviest most mentally burdensome rule of all the rules.  I've argued before that you are fooling yourself if you think that any game with Rule Zero is really rules light.   Your argument that Rules Light empowers rule zero I think misses my main objection to Rules Light games - they tend to act like resolution and results don't really matter much.  They tend to have arbitrary resolution methods with highly suspect odds of success because they act like success or failure doesn't really matter, and rulings don't really matter much, so that whatever the GM says or however he rules is just no big deal.  It's like flying an airplane with no trim controls, because the assumption is that the pilot is just so solid, that regardless of who the plane shakes and wobbles, the GM can correct everything.   This works fine when you've got 2 hours invested in a character or a story that you are half likely to abandon in 2 hours.  It doesn't work so well when you've invested 100's of hours in building a story.



> Or, thinking of it another way, if everything goes well, any system is good.




Or putting it another way, if the GM is skilled enough, every system works.



> If you assume there are issues with a new GM, would you prefer to spend 4 hours looking up rules, or 4 hours playing a wildly inconsistent game with odd interpretations.




Why should we want either one?  But the advantage of the former is that in the second session, you now only spend 2 hours looking up rules.  And by the third just one.   Whereas, it's not at all clear how you get from having a wildly inconsistent game with odd interpretations to a good GM.  Or to put it another way, most modern Indy games do a very poor job of explaining the process of play and what a game is actually like or supposed to be like, to the extent that I've read several just absolutely elegant and beautiful systems and came away with zero ideas about how the game could actually be run the way it was written.



> My answer is the second, by a lot. I'd prefer to actually play a Captain America who the GM has decided wrongly that the shield is a useless attack, rather than spend the time working out that I need to take the Heavy Shield feat to use it, then the Thrown Shield Feat to throw it, and cross-reference that with the thrown weapons (improvised) table, adding a +4 bonus for the heavy shield to the attack, but NOT to the damage.




It sounds to me fundamentally that the problem is you've chosen a system that you've kludged Captain America into, because Cap' wasn't a supported concept in the system and you are trying to play an unsupported character type by leveraging rules never intended for the uses you are putting them to.  Of course you can't necessarily port a Superhero into a fantasy game, nor is it 'wrong' for the GM to decide that your character doesn't have a shield that defies the laws of physics and renders weapons superfluous (lamp-shaded in 'Civil War').


----------



## Hussar (May 18, 2017)

Celebrity stop posting stuff that makes me nod along as I read it. It's just freaking me out.


----------



## billd91 (May 18, 2017)

Celebrim said:


> Simply put, a GM should know the rules sufficient that this doesn't happen or he shouldn't run the system.  If you are frequently doing a rules search something is wrong.   Read the damn rule book.  Then do it again.  System mastery is a prerequisite of GMing.  And even if you run into a situation where the rules don't adequately cover the situation, you should be able to run within about 2 minutes of being confronted with a rules challenge.




Sort of. But the best way to learn the system and gain mastery of it... is to get together with the players and effing *play it*. Every GM's new at some point. Reading, re-reading, and then reading the rules again won't teach system mastery as much as working through it with patient players. My advice is to dive in and work out your understanding together and that will often take longer with a rules heavy system than with a rules light one.




> I've argued before that you are fooling yourself if you think that any game with Rule Zero is really rules light.




Since every RPG essentially has a Rule Zero (how can they not?) this basically just tells me you think no RPG is really rules light. And that's something I disagree with.


----------



## Hussar (May 18, 2017)

billd91 said:


> Sort of. But the best way to learn the system and gain mastery of it... is to get together with the players and effing *play it*. Every GM's new at some point. Reading, re-reading, and then reading the rules again won't teach system mastery as much as working through it with patient players. My advice is to dive in and work out your understanding together and that will often take longer with a rules heavy system than with a rules light one.




Fair enough.  Learn through play is certainly something lots of us have done.  Although, I wonder if a lot of DM's didn't start out as players at one time too - and learned the rules from someone else.

I'm not sure I agree with your second point though.  "Understanding the system" in a rules heavy game is basically just learning the rules - yes, there are wonky bits, as always, but, in a decently written (key point there) rules heavy game, a lot of the rules just become second nature after a few play throughs.  In a rules light game though, you need to not only learn the actual rules of the game, but, also find a way to compromise your understanding and interpretations of those rules to match up with the understandings and interpretations of everyone else at the table.

Otherwise the game grinds to a screeching halt as your interpretation slams up against my interpretation and since it's a rules light game, we have to hash out some sort of compromise.  And this can cause all sorts of issues at the table.



> Since every RPG essentially has a Rule Zero (how can they not?) this basically just tells me you think no RPG is really rules light. And that's something I disagree with.




I think the issue here is defining terms.  Compared to, say, board games, no RPG is ever actually rules light.  It can't be.  There are just too many things you can do in an RPG either before play or during play, to ever really be rules light.  There's a reason that your actions are so restricted in CRPG's.  It's to simplify the system.  Unless you're running a game on a supercomputer, you simply cannot program a CRPG to take into account even fairly simple things.

I think all you can really say is that game X is lighter than game Y.  Certainly Basic/Expert D&D is rules lighter than, say, 3.5 D&D.  Or HERO.    But, is Basic/Expert D&D actually rules light?  Well, not really.  Look at the rules for combat and that is certainly not what I'd consider a rules light system.


----------



## GrahamWills (May 18, 2017)

It's a little unhelpful to trim off the part where I stated that the list applies "Focusing specifically on new players experience" and then talk about how the issues I raised go away with experienced players.

I guess I kind of took for granted that with high skilled, experienced GMs who have an in-depth knowledge of the system, pretty much any system will work pretty well. Isn't that a basic principle that no-one argues anymore? That's why it's not relevant to make such an assumption and then use that as argument that rules-heavy systems are suitable for an introduction to the game.

So let be more explicit: If we're limiting our discussion only to high skilled, experienced GMs who have an in-depth knowledge of the system they are running, I am very willing to agree that they will have no more trouble with a rules-heavy game than a rules-light one. As you say: "if the GM is skilled enough, every system works" -- absolutely. So there is no point even discussing systems for skilled GMs! I think all your objections but one boil down to the suggestion: Always have a skilled, experienced, knowledgable GM, so I'll concentrate on the one that is most interesting:



Celebrim said:


> I've argued before that you are fooling yourself if you think that any game with Rule Zero is really rules light. Your argument that Rules Light empowers rule zero I think misses my main objection to Rules Light games - they tend to act like resolution and results don't really matter much. They tend to have arbitrary resolution methods with highly suspect odds of success because they act like success or failure doesn't really matter, and rulings don't really matter much, so that whatever the GM says or however he rules is just no big deal. It's like flying an airplane with no trim controls, because the assumption is that the pilot is just so solid, that regardless of who the plane shakes and wobbles, the GM can correct everything. This works fine when you've got 2 hours invested in a character or a story that you are half likely to abandon in 2 hours. It doesn't work so well when you've invested 100's of hours in building a story.




I was thinking about your statement that rules light systems "tend to act like resolution and results don't really matter much", and although my initial reaction was to object, I think I now tend to agree with you. Except that I also think that they don't actually matter that much in *any* system, taking your definition of matter as having good estimates of "odds of success"

I agree with you that in a rules-heavy system with experienced GMs, you are more likely to get that consistency in minor matters: Is ¾ cover worth +2 or +4 on a d20 roll (a difference that will only be meaningful 10% of the time). It may be related to a simulationist bent -- where the consistency of world physics is the most important feature. But for me, even when playing a rules-heavy game, I find that "resolution and results don't really matter much" is very true. Most of the time, when I roll a d20 for an attack in 4E, I know the result without bothering. And if I make a mistake on any roll, does it make a major difference? Nope. So I'd challenge people who think that the added consistency supported by a rules-heavy system is important to ask yourselves: When was the last time it actually made a real difference? Can you think of a situation in the last game you played where if the GM had made even a 25% probability-shifting error one way or another, it would have made a real difference in the story?

In my experience, the serious differences that have had major effects in resolution have been exactly the ones where rules-heavy systems give LESS help than rules-light ones. These fall into the "knowing which rule to apply" issue, which is self-obviously harder in rules-heavy games (there's more choice!) and for which no advice is given. Things like:

Does Skill X or Skill Y apply to this situation?
Can I use ability Z in this situation?

Frankly, this is where, as a long-time heavy-rules system running GM and player, I find that rules-heavy systems are weakest. Because they have so many rules, it can be very hard to work out which ones apply. And when your GM believes your agile rogue character with +25 Acrobatics has to make a check using their +6 athletics skill instead, that's way more nasty than inconsistent application of a +2 fate aspect bonus

And if you go to rules-heavy boards, the number of questions related to applicability of an ability are so overwhelming that companies used to have entire teams of customer support answering questions like "can a monk who has polymorphed into a hydra use flurry of blows?" and the like. Essentially, rule zero is particularly hard for rules-heavy games because the GM has to make so many more calls on what to apply. 

Now you may argue that this doesn't fit into the definition of "rule zero" -- thinking of it as limited to "making up" rules and not including "deciding which to apply". I'm OK with that definition, but the essential point stands -- my belief is that the GM has to make many more game affecting judgement calls in a rules-heavy system than they make game affecting judgement calls in a rules-light system. 


A long note, because it's an interesting point about rules light versus heavy and judgement calls. It made me think back over a long career of rules decisions and impact to think about what made a difference. It's especially helpful for me, because I've run several rules-heavy campaigns of 300+ hours (Rolemaster, 3.5, 4E) and several rules light ones of equal length (Call of Cthulhu, GUMSHOE) and it made me realize that the details of the resolution process really aren't that often game-affecting. So I've ended up generally supporting your contention, except broadening it to all games: 

*With a reasonably competent GM and players, resolution and results don't really matter much*.


----------



## billd91 (May 18, 2017)

Hussar said:


> I think the issue here is defining terms.  Compared to, say, board games, no RPG is ever actually rules light.  It can't be.  There are just too many things you can do in an RPG either before play or during play, to ever really be rules light.  There's a reason that your actions are so restricted in CRPG's.  It's to simplify the system.  Unless you're running a game on a supercomputer, you simply cannot program a CRPG to take into account even fairly simple things.
> 
> I think all you can really say is that game X is lighter than game Y.  Certainly Basic/Expert D&D is rules lighter than, say, 3.5 D&D.  Or HERO.    But, is Basic/Expert D&D actually rules light?  Well, not really.  Look at the rules for combat and that is certainly not what I'd consider a rules light system.




I'm not entirely sure comparing RPGs with board games is even worthwhile when it comes to determining if something's rules light. Board games include some pretty extreme examples of light like Chutes and Ladders and Candyland. It's ultimately like comparing apples and Nutella - a lot of people eat both with peanut butter but that's about where the validity of the comparison ends.


----------



## billd91 (May 18, 2017)

Double post


----------



## Hussar (May 18, 2017)

billd91 said:


> I'm not entirely sure comparing RPGs with board games is even worthwhile when it comes to determining if something's rules light. Board games include some pretty extreme examples of light like Chutes and Ladders and Candyland. It's ultimately like comparing apples and Nutella - a lot of people eat both with peanut butter but that's about where the validity of the comparison ends.




I tend to agree.  But, that being said, when talking about rules light or rules heavy RPG's, it's probably not a bad thing to start from the point of view that even rules light games are not simple.  Running an RPG, whether your rule book is 10 pages long, or a 1000, is never a simple task. 

-----
 [MENTION=75787]GrahamWills[/MENTION] - My issue with the idea of rules light vs rules heavy is that rules light, by their very nature, require more DM input to determine the results of actions.  I think that's a fairly uncontroversial point.  The thing is, the more often the DM has to step in and determine the results of actions, the more likely it is that the DM will make a questionable call.  Again, this is just math.  If the DM has to step in 100 times, it's more likely that he or she's going to make a mistake than if the DM has to step in 10 times.

And, IME, forcing people to play amateur game designer is a bad idea.  People are notoriously bad at determining odds and calculating risk vs reward, especially on the fly.  Which often results in rules light games being very frustrating in play as the DM (or GM, or whatever you want to call it) continuously comes up with arbitrary resolutions that are more punishing than fun.


----------



## thzero (May 18, 2017)

Hussar said:


> And, IME, forcing people to play amateur game designer is a bad idea.




Yeah but most RPGs, of any sort, are created by amateur game designers.   Technically yes, if you get paid, you are a 'professional' but doesn't really mean much.


----------



## Hussar (May 18, 2017)

thzero said:


> Yeah but most RPGs, of any sort, are created by amateur game designers.   Technically yes, if you get paid, you are a 'professional' but doesn't really mean much.




You know what I mean.   

Amateur game designer as in something you do on the fly, without a whole lot of input from anyone else, and no testing.  I.E. what a GM has to do when the rules don't cover some aspect of play.  And it brings with it all sorts of issues - any time you have a divergence of expectations at the table, the fact that it's that person sitting to your left telling you "no, you fail", even though you think you should have a chance of success, is always going to cause friction at the table and no amount of "trust your GM" advice is going to erase that.


----------



## thzero (May 18, 2017)

Hussar said:


> You know what I mean.
> 
> Amateur game designer as in something you do on the fly, without a whole lot of input from anyone else, and no testing.  I.E. what a GM has to do when the rules don't cover some aspect of play.  And it brings with it all sorts of issues - any time you have a divergence of expectations at the table, the fact that it's that person sitting to your left telling you "no, you fail", even though you think you should have a chance of success, is always going to cause friction at the table and no amount of "trust your GM" advice is going to erase that.




Yes, I do know what you mean.  And actually with what you meant I do agree with.


----------



## S'mon (May 19, 2017)

Hussar said:


> any time you have a divergence of expectations at the table, the fact that it's that person sitting to your left telling you "no, you fail", even though you think you should have a chance of success, is always going to cause friction at the table and no amount of "trust your GM" advice is going to erase that.




IME it only causes friction if the GM does not tell the player the odds before the player makes the attempt. If my GM follows Moldvay's simulationist advice and tells me that jumping into the chasm gives me a 1% chance of survival before I jump, I know not to do that. If the GM follows cinematic tropes and gives me a 50% or better chance to survive, maybe I do that. Neither is a problem. It's a problem if I jump expecting cinematic tropes and GM gives me 1% chance or auto-death.


----------



## Celebrim (May 19, 2017)

S'mon said:


> IME it only causes friction if the GM does not tell the player the odds before the player makes the attempt. If my GM follows Moldvay's simulationist advice and tells me that jumping into the chasm gives me a 1% chance of survival before I jump, I know not to do that. If the GM follows cinematic tropes and gives me a 50% or better chance to survive, maybe I do that. Neither is a problem. It's a problem if I jump expecting cinematic tropes and GM gives me 1% chance or auto-death.




One big problem is if the system gives no concrete guidance as to what success actually means, then it becomes very likely that unconsciously the GM will scale the degree of difficulty to the ability of the player.   In other words, with no way of knowing 'A success of the degree means you cleared 8 meters', a GM asked to resolve a proposition, 'Jump this canyon', will tend to often without realizing it, set the difficulty of the jump based on the player getting a better than expected result.  Instead of setting the difficulty as 'better than average result' the difficulty becomes 'better than average roll'.   But the result of that is that clearing the obstacle whatever it is, becomes a coin flip no matter how skilled your character is.   This may not even be immediately obvious to all players, because often players are each facing there own obstacles rather than competing with each other against the same obstacles.  

Even your own example implies that there is a subconscious expectation that everyone, regardless of skill traits, has the same 1% chance of surviving jumping into the chasm.  

This also tends to happen whenever there is no myth in the game.  Without prep, the skill of an enemy tends to be, 'whatever would be a challenge for the particular character facing the enemy'.   

In D&D 3e or later, this is most commonly seen in things like the difficulty of disarming a trap or opening a lock.   How hard is it?  Hard enough to require the rogue to make a good throw, regardless how the rogues aptitude for disarming traps or opening locks.  DC scales with ability, meaning that there is little to be gained in investing in the ability.


----------



## Hussar (May 20, 2017)

S'mon said:


> IME it only causes friction if the GM does not tell the player the odds before the player makes the attempt. If my GM follows Moldvay's simulationist advice and tells me that jumping into the chasm gives me a 1% chance of survival before I jump, I know not to do that. If the GM follows cinematic tropes and gives me a 50% or better chance to survive, maybe I do that. Neither is a problem. It's a problem if I jump expecting cinematic tropes and GM gives me 1% chance or auto-death.




OTOH, it also causes friction when the GM and the player have differing ideas of what those odds should be.  The DM gives you X chance of success and you think that X is unreasonable, you get friction at the table.  Again, it comes down to simply differing ideas about what's going on in the game.

And, again, the more often that the GM has to step in and make that determination, the greater the odds that there will be a misalignment of expectations.

Of course, all this rolls back around to the idea of simple vs complex RPG's.  In a simple RPG, the DM steps in and says you have X chance to jump Y distance.  Well, that's now pretty much a rule of the game.  He shouldn't be changing those odds for the next guy, unless there are pretty good circumstances for doing so.  If both characters are more or less similar (a fighter in chain mail and a cleric in chain mail, both with similar Strength scores) then the odds should be either very close or the same.  

Thus, now you have a rule.  Play long enough and you wind up having precedence set rules for that table for most things.  IOW, over a long enough span of time, that simple RPG will become a complex RPG, simply through accretion of table rulings.  

Think about how people talked about the changes from 2e to 3e.  How many people mentioned their binder thick set of table rules?  It was hardly rare.  And, also not rare was the breath of fresh air that people talked about when they talked about 3e and how their 3 inch binder of house rules became a 3x5 index card.  Of course, now you have a 3 inch set of rule books to plow through for answers, but, the end result is pretty much the same.  The big difference though is standardization between groups.  It became a lot easier for people to talk about the game mechanics simply because so many people were coming from the same baseline.

That is much more difficult if everyone is singing from a different hymn book.


----------



## S'mon (May 20, 2017)

Hussar said:


> OTOH, it also causes friction when the GM and the player have differing ideas of what those odds should be.  The DM gives you X chance of success and you think that X is unreasonable, you get friction at the table.




Well no, I think that's an issue specific to you and your group.


----------



## Hussar (May 21, 2017)

S'mon said:


> Well no, I think that's an issue specific to you and your group.




Seriously?  You've NEVER had an argument with a player over an adjudication?  Never?  Not once in all the years you've gamed?  You've never seen a DM and a player have a disagreement over any DM adjudication?

I'm having a tough time believing that.


----------



## S'mon (May 22, 2017)

Hussar said:


> Seriously?  You've NEVER had an argument with a player over an adjudication?  Never?  Not once in all the years you've gamed?  You've never seen a DM and a player have a disagreement over any DM adjudication?
> 
> I'm having a tough time believing that.




Has a player ever argued with me about the rules when I GM? Mmm, no. Not that I can recall. If a rules issue is raised (usually it's how exactly a particular spell works) we look up the text, I adjudicate, play continues. Nobody argues.

As a player I am a bit rules-lawyerly, and have a tendency to ask "Is that a house rule?" if the GM gets it wrong.   But I don't _argue_.

If it's a non-rules adjudication (how an NPC would react, say) then certainly there's no argument.

Edit: I recall one time in 2011 one of the players in my 4e game looked a bit miffed that I hadn't 
rolled a Bluff check for captured dwarf slaver Kazon Kul lying to the PCs vs their Passive Insight (he offered to
escort the PCs out into the wilderness to his fellow slavers' base & help the PCs vs his friends), but had roleplayed out what he said in character ("Oh yeah, I'll help you fight them, you can trust me...") and had expected them to request Insight checks if suspicious. They gave him back his crossbow. When they reached the slaver base & the dwarf slaver then started shooting at the PCs she seemed annoyed at me for not having rolled the dwarf's Bluff or told her to make an Insight check earlier. 
I thought this was a bit silly - if I'd checked their Passive Insight or requested a check then they would have known he was lying, and I don't think Insight works like that. There was a disagreement, but I wouldn't say she argued about it.

(It might be significant that player is an Ethics professor, they have some odd notions.)


----------



## Hussar (May 22, 2017)

Wow.  Now there's some seriously different experiences.  

I spent most of my 1e and 2e experiences fielding arguments (and sometimes making them) with players.  Even in 3e, I saw it frequently, although, that tended to be a single player whose grasp of the mechanics was less accurate than he believed it to be.

But, seriously, I'm stunned to be honest.  You've had a much, much more cooperative group(s) than I ever saw.  Must be nice.


----------



## Von Ether (May 22, 2017)

I've had experience all across the board; helpful players and argumentativeness ones both in rules light/narrative and crunchy/tactical. 

It all boiled down the players -- and nothing is sweeter than a player who groks both the rules and your style, helping you in both in front of the screen and behind it.


----------



## S'mon (May 22, 2017)

Hussar said:


> Wow.  Now there's some seriously different experiences.
> 
> I spent most of my 1e and 2e experiences fielding arguments (and sometimes making them) with players.  Even in 3e, I saw it frequently, although, that tended to be a single player whose grasp of the mechanics was less accurate than he believed it to be.
> 
> But, seriously, I'm stunned to be honest.  You've had a much, much more cooperative group(s) than I ever saw.  Must be nice.




OK now I remember one (now bear in mind I have 4 groups on the go at once & have GM'd for a couple hundred people)! Around 2013 I was running 1e AD&D online and I applied the DMG  movement rules as written. It says if you Charge you lose your DEX bonus, if you don't charge you can't move more than 10' and still attack. A veteran D&D player (playing since mid 1970s) who's since become a friend had Opa the DEX 18 Elf PC and absolutely would not accept this, he kept saying "I want to move in to melee, attack & keep my DEX bonus". I think he'd just never seen the RAW applied before, and ended up quitting my game for awhile. We're good now though - we 
play 5e. 

I think basically I was in the wrong there, in that while I was using the 1e rules as written, that is a very deviant thing to do with 1e. Whenever I'd run 1e in previous campaigns I'm pretty sure I always let everyone move their 
listed move rate and attack at +2/-2 but keep DEX bonus. If I ever run 1e again I'll likely use 
Moldvay/5e style movement.


----------



## pemerton (May 22, 2017)

S'mon said:


> I think basically I was in the wrong there, in that while I was using the 1e rules as written, that is a very deviant thing to do with 1e. Whenever I'd run 1e in previous campaigns I'm pretty sure I always let everyone move their listed move rate and attack at +2/-2 but keep DEX bonus. If I ever run 1e again I'll likely use Moldvay/5e style movement.



I don't have a view on whether or not you were in the wrong, but I actually quite like that 1st ed AD&D rule. By encouraging closing as a separate "thing", it reduces the benefits of speed/alpha-ing.


----------



## billd91 (May 22, 2017)

Hussar said:


> Wow.  Now there's some seriously different experiences.
> 
> I spent most of my 1e and 2e experiences fielding arguments (and sometimes making them) with players.  Even in 3e, I saw it frequently, although, that tended to be a single player whose grasp of the mechanics was less accurate than he believed it to be.
> 
> But, seriously, I'm stunned to be honest.  You've had a much, much more cooperative group(s) than I ever saw.  Must be nice.




We've had a few minor arguments over the years but nothing really serious. My experiences since 1981 have been far more like S'mon's than yours. I don't think there's any relationship between simple/complicated games that relates to that - it strikes me more as dysfunctional group dynamics because of toxic personalities. If they're going to be toxic with a simple game, they're going to be toxic with a complicated one and vice versa.


----------



## Hussar (May 22, 2017)

billd91 said:


> We've had a few minor arguments over the years but nothing really serious. My experiences since 1981 have been far more like S'mon's than yours. I don't think there's any relationship between simple/complicated games that relates to that - it strikes me more as dysfunctional group dynamics because of toxic personalities. If they're going to be toxic with a simple game, they're going to be toxic with a complicated one and vice versa.




I'm not sure I agree.  None, or at least very few, of the people I played with I would consider toxic.  Note, for much of my gaming after high school, I played with strangers.  It hasn't been until the last five or six years that I've actually had a stable group since high school.  It was, from the early 90's to after the Oughts that I ran into this mostly and it was almost always with these "random gamers playing together" groups.

And, it's almost always due to a mismatch in player vs DM perspectives.  It's the "No, you cannot jump in armor, you can barely walk in plate mail" vs "What?  Man, I wish they'd hurry up and invent Youtube so I can show you what can be done in armor".  

Very little of the problems I've seen stem from any sort of malice.  No one was deliberately sabotaging the game.  But, what there was was often clashes of differing points of view.  Which, by and large, disappeared in 3e with its much more comprehensive ruleset.  It still came up, from time to time, but, far, far less often.


----------



## pemerton (May 23, 2017)

Hussar said:


> It's the "No, you cannot jump in armor, you can barely walk in plate mail" vs "What?  Man, I wish they'd hurry up and invent Youtube so I can show you what can be done in armor".
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Very little of the problems I've seen stem from any sort of malice.  No one was deliberately sabotaging the game.  But, what there was was often clashes of differing points of view.



This is easily _described_ in analytic terms: the GM is making a call based on the _fictional positioning_ of the PC ("You're in cumbersome armour, so you can't jump") and the player doesn't share the GM's view of the fictional positioning.

One common approach to _resolving_ these sorts of disagreements is to say that the GM always has the last (perhaps even the first!) say on the fictional positioning. What they may tend to do, though - especially if it is _first say_ - is discourage players from declaring actions where fictional positioning is relevant, so that they can rely purely on mechanics that never interact with the fiction. That is, in effect, what is being advocated here:



Hussar said:


> Which, by and large, disappeared in 3e with its much more comprehensive ruleset. It still came up, from time to time, but, far, far less often.



3E replaces adjudication based on fictional positioning with adjudication based on rules at heaps of places in the game (continuing an approach to D&D that I would say had its published origins in the late-80s DSG and WSG).

My preferred solution is to maintain the significance of fictional positioning for action declaration, but to change the incentives that operate on players and GMs (so that, eg, GMs don't need to feel worried that by letting players get the benefit of _their_ conception of their PCs' fictional positioning, the game will break or the player get some sort of undue benefit). All three games that I am currently GMing - Burning Wheel, Cortex/MHRP, and 4e D&D - have solutions to this problem along the lines I have sketched, though it is different for each game.


----------



## Shasarak (May 24, 2017)

Hussar said:


> I spent most of my 1e and 2e experiences fielding arguments (and sometimes making them) with players.  Even in 3e, I saw it frequently, although, that tended to be a single player whose grasp of the mechanics was less accurate than he believed it to be.




Hussar I am frankly shocked, shocked I tell you, that you would be fielding arguments from anyone.


----------



## Hussar (May 24, 2017)

Shasarak said:


> Hussar I am frankly shocked, shocked I tell you, that you would be fielding arguments from anyone.




Thanks for that.  I needed the giggle.

Fair enough.  Although, to be fair, my personality on boards is not exactly the same as how I play.

Thing is, as I said before, I played with a LOT of strangers.  Mostly random assortments of players and DM's who got together to play.  Most of the time, I didn't play with friends - I moved far too often and, for the past almost twenty years, my gaming has been all on VTT's, meaning that I've never actually met my fellow players face to face in a very long time.  

Add to that the fact that many of the groups I played with had some absolutely atrocious DM's, probably including myself for a very long time since I mimicked how I saw other people run their games.  Deus ex machina plot lines, sidelining PC's, railroading, and some blindingly poor DMing decisions (and I'm only talking about myself here, never minding the garbage games I played in for years) made for some extremely frustrating play for far too much time than I care to remember.

I have to admit, I'm so jealous of players who have solid groups that have come together as friends and have such an easier time of gaming together.  I certainly didn't have that.  My gaming history is a litany of horror stories - the GMPC Mary Sue's, the lockstep railroading, you name it, I've either done it, or played it.

So, yeah, my attitude towards things like table friction is a bit less forgiving than it might be.  It hasn't been until the last, oh, about six or so years that I've had a stable group.  The first thirty years or so was a hodgepodge of various gamers, all with wildly differing approaches.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 26, 2017)

Hussar said:


> Thanks for that.  I needed the giggle.
> 
> Fair enough.  Although, to be fair, my personality on boards is not exactly the same as how I play.
> 
> ...




Well that really sucks. A good group of people that you can play live games with is truly a greater treasure than any set of rules.


----------



## billd91 (May 26, 2017)

pemerton said:


> This is easily _described_ in analytic terms: the GM is making a call based on the _fictional positioning_ of the PC ("You're in cumbersome armour, so you can't jump") and the player doesn't share the GM's view of the fictional positioning.
> 
> One common approach to _resolving_ these sorts of disagreements is to say that the GM always has the last (perhaps even the first!) say on the fictional positioning. What they may tend to do, though - especially if it is _first say_ - is discourage players from declaring actions where fictional positioning is relevant, so that they can rely purely on mechanics that never interact with the fiction. That is, in effect, what is being advocated here:




While I think you describe the issue between the GM and the player - they have opposed views of the situation, I don't agree that the alternative is relying purely on mechanics or that doing so is never interacting with the fiction. The rules structure of 3e, particularly in the case of jumping in armor, doesn't dispense with the fictional situation at all. The PC has a gap they're thinking about jumping while wearing armor in both situations. What 3e does is provide a consistent answer to the question "How far can the PC jump in this armor." In essence, it just provides more detail for the situation for both the GM and the player, something intended to give the player a reliable means of estimating their chances of success with certain given factors (ACP penalty of the armor, Jump skill) but that doesn't prevent there from being additional fictional positioning like various means of helping the jumping PC affect their final success (or failure).


----------



## billd91 (May 26, 2017)

Double post


----------



## pemerton (May 27, 2017)

billd91 said:


> While I think you describe the issue between the GM and the player - they have opposed views of the situation, I don't agree that the alternative is relying purely on mechanics or that doing so is never interacting with the fiction.



Don't agree with whom? Maybe you've misunderstood me.

In the post you quoted, I said:



pemerton said:


> My preferred solution is to maintain the significance of fictional positioning for action declaration, but to change the incentives that operate on players and GMs (so that, eg, GMs don't need to feel worried that by letting players get the benefit of _their_ conception of their PCs' fictional positioning, the game will break or the player get some sort of undue benefit). All three games that I am currently GMing - Burning Wheel, Cortex/MHRP, and 4e D&D - have solutions to this problem along the lines I have sketched, though it is different for each game.





billd91 said:


> The rules structure of 3e, particularly in the case of jumping in armor, doesn't dispense with the fictional situation at all. The PC has a gap they're thinking about jumping while wearing armor in both situations. What 3e does is provide a consistent answer to the question "How far can the PC jump in this armor."



The fictional positioning doesn't factor into the resolution except by establishing the framing of the check. The concepts of "feet jumped", "armour check penalty", "Jumping skill bonsu", are all mechanically defined.

If the GM were to say, "OK, there's a patch of mud at your launching point, that will impose a -2 to the check" - _that_ would be factoring in fictional positioning. And if the player then responded, "Luckily I've been carrying around a sandbag on my equipment list - I empty out all my sand onto the mud patch, so that I won't lose my footing as I make the jump - that should cancel the -2" - well, that would be factoring in fictional positioning also.

One way to think about it is this: someone who didn't know what a chasm was, or how long a foot is as a measure of distance, or what effect armour has on maneouvring, could still adjudicate the 3E action declaration, "I jump across the 5' wide chasm without taking off my armour". Whereas imposing the penalty for mud, and trying to mitigate that by laying sand, both can be done only by someone who knows what mud is, and why it will interfere with the take off for the jump, and what sand might do to reduce the slipperiness. (And if the GM and player have different views about the effectiveness of sand as a corrrective for mud when jumping - it's not something I personally know much about - then the sort of disupte [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] referred to above might break out.)



billd91 said:


> In essence, it just provides more detail for the situation for both the GM and the player, something intended to give the player a reliable means of estimating their chances of success with certain given factors (ACP penalty of the armor, Jump skill)



But not very much more detail about the fiction. For instance, 3E doesn't describe chasms, and jumping surfaces, and armour, in any more detail than does AD&D or Moldvay Basic. When we look at armour, the same is true vis-a-vis AD&D, and compared to Moldvay Basic all it does is add a few more makes of armour.

It does have more detail than AD&D or Moldvay Basic about whether or not a character is a good jumper, but even that is very cursory - the rules don't tell us, for instance, whether +10 to jump means "Can jump as well as the strongest athlete in the high school playground" or "Can jump as well as an Olympic-level competitor" - at best we can infer that from the DC chart, although the weirdness of the d20 factors in to that too.

The extra detail is mechanical. Which is why it does the work [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has asked it to do - it removes the need for anyone to adjudicate the fictional positioning.


----------



## Tomdeargentina (Jan 24, 2021)

Sure, follow the money, see how a thousand lonely creators use any skeletal system and create 5 or then games a year while teams of creators take a year to make one with 400 pages. Less revenue pair unit certainly but more products and less investment. Follow the money indeed.


----------



## Morrus (Jan 24, 2021)

Tomdeargentina said:


> Sure, follow the money, see how a thousand lonely creators use any skeletal system and create 5 or then games a year while teams of creators take a year to make one with 400 pages. Less revenue pair unit certainly but more products and less investment. Follow the money indeed.



Just a note — this thread is 4 years old.


----------



## aco175 (Jan 24, 2021)

@Tomdeargentina Welcome to the boards, we take all types and welcome input.


----------



## aramis erak (Jan 27, 2021)

Going back through the thread...


martinlochsen said:


> I am having a hard time following the logic of this article. Perhaps I'm stupid and don't see what is obvious to others but there are a couple of things I don't understand.
> First off, it's stated that there are more new players at events and clubs than there used to be, and less experienced players. Ok. That's fine. But... the reason for this is that rpg rules are too complex? I don't get it. How are those two things connected?
> Next, this is put forth as an argument for simpler rules. Is many new players at clubs and events a bad thing? Doesn't that just mean that there's a lot of recruitment to the hobby, which would really be a good thing?
> To sum up. There are mostly new players at events because rules are too complex. That's why the rules should be simpler, but they won't be because complex games are more popular and so make more money, and that's why the companies make the games complex.
> ...



The longstanding debate about simple vs complex has been around since the release of Tunnels and Trolls in 1975.
Mr. Pulsipher's piece, due to his editorial limit, isn't easily parsed. 


Yaztromo said:


> I can understand this point of view: there are simple and quick RPG systems that work pefectly well and that allow you to start playing purposefully in five minutes (lieterally). They would be perfect to involve new players and new game masters, but reality is that there is more money to make in complex games that appeal to hard core fans and scare away possible newcomers that may expand the number of gamers. More money in complex games means more opportunities to hire best creative talents for complex games.
> Simple games have to go uphill.



One of the fastest games for new players to learn is WEG/Nocturnal's D6 system... a new player can have a new character in 5 minutes and be given a 5 minute intro, and be effective in play. It's a single resolution mechanic, very consistent (well, until the current edition, which added ads and disads; now in its third ownership).
MLP:Tails of Equestria is actually slower to get players up on, but is easier to play due to comparison only, rather than doing calculations.



thzero said:


> It's also a 'generic system' and 5e is not.   If you look at just the core Savage Worlds even tossing in fantasy it is really quite straightforward.



D&D is a generic system, but not  a universal one. It is focused upon one  specific genre - and it's a genre created by D&D, but shared in T&T, C&C, Pathfinder,


Doctor Futurity said:


> It seems to me that "complexity" and "choice" often get conflated in discussions like this.



One of several conflations common in the subject at hand.
Length vs complexity - while corelated, it's not terribly strongly so.
Crunchy vs complex - again, while corelated, it's not a given.

Example: T&T 5e, while 100 pages, is a 3 mechanic system: Spell casting, Combat Rolls, Saving Rolls.
Moldvay D&D basic is 64 pages, has spells, combat rolls, saving rolls, turning undead rolls, thief skill rolls, Morale rolls, and fuzzily included attribute checks and percentage likely checks (those last two on p. b60)...
T&T5 is mechanically simpler, despite being longer.
T&T5 does, however, have much less covered explicitly, but has a  very simple, fleble and singular mechanic for non-spell, non-attack, resolution.
Despite that, T&T is also often crunchier - the rules elements are used more than the mechanics are in BX/BE play.
D&D stats in BX/BE require tables to explain their uses.
T&T stats generally don't... except Cha.
D&D stats in BX/BE generate a modifier that makes them less important than class and level most of the time.
T&T stats are used directly, and indirectly, but only spellcasting is actually limited by level. Spell casting, allowed weapons, and allowed armor are class limited, much as they are in D&D.

BX D&D weapons tables have: Name, Damage*, Weight, and an annotation for 2-handed, plus range for missiles.
T&T has Name, Damage, Weight, Req STR, Req DEX, Hands, and, for ranged, range.

*Not that anyone I ever played with used the every weapon does 1d6... but technically, the damage column is optional in BX.


billd91 said:


> Since every RPG essentially has a Rule Zero (how can they not?) this basically just tells me you think no RPG is really rules light. And that's something I disagree with.



It's not needed if the game is one where player inputs are constrained and only certain items are mechanicalized.  The games I've seen that don't have either rotating GMing, or no difficulty levels. A number of games make the rules authority the group vote, and deny GM authority over rules calls.


S'mon said:


> Well no, I think that's an issue specific to you and your group.



The issue of problem players with rules arguments isn't specific to his group, it's pretty common


Hussar said:


> Wow.  Now there's some seriously different experiences.
> 
> I spent most of my 1e and 2e experiences fielding arguments (and sometimes making them) with players.  Even in 3e, I saw it frequently, although, that tended to be a single player whose grasp of the mechanics was less accurate than he believed it to be.
> 
> But, seriously, I'm stunned to be honest.  You've had a much, much more cooperative group(s) than I ever saw.  Must be nice.



When I was running games back in '81, Aaron, Sam, myself, and John basically, read Moldvay page B60, right col, as including advice to seek rules concensus with GM only as tiebreaker, not authority.


AbdulAlhazred said:


> I consider 'traditional'/'old school' play as being almost entirely dominated by 'the long shadow of E. Gary Gygax.' Although I would not characterize a lot of it as 'how D&D was played in 1973' perhaps, it all very clearly descends from that period and the way people are thinking about things, the terms they use, and what they consider to be the nature and standard processes of an RPG are entirely reflective of that. Again and again we hear statements and analysis that amount to "an RPG (or roleplay) can only be a GM describing scenes to players which (s)he has authored and to which their sole response is limited to those available in-character'. The goal ALWAYS encompasses some flavor of "adjudicate and present situations such that they never deviate from some (how determined?) measure of 'things which could happen without respect to PCs'."
> 
> I don't really have good terminology for a lot of these 'Gygaxian assumptions' as you put it, or the process attached to them, because I feel that the analysis served up with them is really pretty weak. The process, as presented by its practitioners, simply doesn't seem to 'hold water' to me. I can use their words sometimes, but I think the connotations they are attempting to convey don't apply at all to the way I think about it.



Reading the various eras of Gygax's advice, a lot of people lean on the AD&D era advice... his earlier advice was less toxic in content, less narrow in scope, and less toxic in presentation than his late 1E advice in dragon, and his advice in the AD&D 1E DMG..

It's not a cohesive whole. Likewise, the OSR movement isn't a cohesive whole. (It's a very loud but not very big minority).

I, myself, don't agree with Mr. Pulsifer's definitions. My own functional definition is "A game¹ where players control one or more characters' attempted² Actions³ in a situation presented either by participant creation or by a module⁴."
¹: an activity with rules. not all games are competitions, and not all play is in/part-of a game.
²: Most RPGs, the rules mechanics, either as called for by the GM or by the rules, determine success; the player declares the attempt only.
³: Note the capital A in Actions - using it to refer to any effort that has a mechanical resolution mechanic.
⁴: This weasel wording is to include the solo modules, as well as GM-less modules for groups, and GM'd modules.

There have been attempts to seriously analyze games and gamers in the context of RPGs... the problem is that those doing it have all too often fallen prey to confirmation bias and/or selection bias. Part of the problem is that RPGs are generally played in private, and those who play aren't objective, and those who don't play generally aren't interested in doing the research.

I'll also note: D&D 5E has had the largest data collection effort - it's deeply mired in selection bias, but it's the best dataset... and D&D 5E was the result.  As with all things heavily built upon feedback, it's development narrowed the response window by discouraging dissenters via increasing moves in the majority opinion direction. And that data collection has not ended with publication... WotC has done more market research than most of the rest of the industry.


----------



## Bohandas (Feb 3, 2021)

lewpuls said:


> Yet we continue to see the most popular RPGs loaded down with vast rulebooks. Unfortunately, the seeds of long-range destruction of any RPG edition are built into the capitalist economy.
> 
> You don't need a Ph.D. in history to know a lot can be explained if you "follow the money". To make money you need to sell product. If your primary business is RPGs you have to produce a game that is not only large but very extensible, so that you can sell additional rules.  In the long run, that makes the game crunchy and unwieldy, dooms it to become too complex to appeal to the less than hard-core players.




Or they could just constantly push out unneeded new editions, that would work too. That's how the textbook companies do it


----------

