>Rule lite games get one-shot by that one autistic player who remembers all the rulings a GM makes then presents them in a 600 page document

I never understood having pride in 'lite systems'-- they will become crunchy over time as you document your rulings. The way to keep them 'lite' is to make your rulings unpredictable and undocumented; as a player you have to suspend your disbelief and never point out inconsistencies

The TTRPG law is that your table will become as crunchy as your nerd levels allow for. Kids will gut crunchy systems of rules they don't understand and nerds will make lite systems into homebrew hell

>>96135726 (OP)
That's why I'm inconsistent with my rulings. Problem?

>>96135726 (OP)
Incredible. This has to be the most "I've never played a game in my life" kind of post ever made.

This just sounds like you shouldn't play games with people who're obnoxiously autistic.

>>96135726 (OP)
This is why I don't play with autists. Problem?

>>96135754
It's far more work making up a dozen different rulings and negotiating then just writing it down once lol

>>96135782
>negotiating
There is no negotiation. You don't argue rulings (not rules, rulings) with the GM, and you especially don't do it at the table during game time

>>96135788
Players describing what they're doing and how they're doing it to obtain a favorable ruling is a type of negotiating

I think it's cool

>>96135774
>>96135775
It's true, you have to have a bad memory. Autistic nerds should stick to crunchy systems-- much happier

Rule lite system are designed for jelly doughnut gut drunkards and stoners who forget what their own character does after months of playing it

>>96135726 (OP)
I just write down the mechanics I want in a game and play it solo.
This way, I can play the game I want, without compromising for anyone else, and without forcing anyone else into something they may not want.
I don't have to worry about it being too light or too heavy for my liking, because I make it to my liking, and I don't need to worry about what other people are doing, because that doesn't affect my games.

>>96135771
I'm honestly sick of the marketing of lite systems, trying to make less content appears like a feature. When it really just makes it unsuitable for long term campaigns without a massive effort on the GM's part or the players just being disengaged treating little more than as an excuse to drink

>>96135775
I'm autistic and have no problem with this. Rules are made up for the purpose of facilitating the game. The GM's role is to make the game happen, not to systematize game playing itself. A good rule set supports the GM in making rulings not covered in the book through consistent design, whether that design revolves around complexity or simplicity is not actually important. A good group understands that no rule set is perfect and trusts that the GM can only do their best under the pressure of the moment to come up with ways to apply the system to situations it does not explicitly cover.

>>96135929
>The GM's role is to make the game happen

The GM is suppose to be narrator, the director-- the human server of the world. The players are the actors within that world making decisions and seeing the consequences of their choices

You need enough logic so players can make predictions on actions they'd want to typically do within the world; without the ability to predict then the ability to game a system becomes diminished

>>96136008
I like the part where you just restated what I said.

>>96136011
I'm glad we agree then

>>96135726 (OP)
>one autistic player who remembers all the rulings a GM makes then presents them in a 600 page document
I ain't reading that shit Samuel. If you want to keep playing with us. Youll have to accept my ruling and just move on. Also, please pass me the hotpockets

>>96135726 (OP)
>I never understood having pride in 'lite systems'-- they will become crunchy over time as you document your rulings.
It'll only be rules relevant to your table though, not pages upon pages of irrelevant bs.
Usually they end up way liter than anything published.

>>96135726 (OP)
Corollary: the reason rules lite games stay lite is that nobody plays them for very long.

>>96139171
This is true

>>96135726 (OP)
>The TTRPG law is that your table will become as crunchy as your nerd levels allow for. Kids will gut crunchy systems of rules they don't understand and nerds will make lite systems into homebrew hell
Total truth nuke.

>>96135726 (OP)
This is not the problem with rules lite systems and you've probably never played one.

Rules exist to let the players control and influence the narrative directly and reliably. If you have actual rules for how fleeing works, for example, players might actually flee instead of fighting to the death like in 5e; similarly, if you have actual rules for morale, enemies might actually flee instead of fighting to the death like in 5e. Rules lite systems turn into mother-may-I with the GM, unless the designer very carefully selects which rules to include, that are specifically those relevant to the table experience.

You should try playing something that isn't D&D. If D&D is a ton of fun and you don't want to then don't, but don't assume your made up opinions make sense.

Lite games requiere much less rulling because there isn't an expectation of detail and nuance, players don't expect it so they're not mad when actions have general solutions. You can even ask a player if the rulling sounds fair to them (and use that as a test to see if they'll try to push your buttons and make the game worse just to win)

>>96135799
you know they didn't mean it that way, dubs. We're talking about arguing the meta, not the particular conditions.

>>96135820
that's just sad
go to a flgs and look for an open table that seems nice

>>96135846
You're somehow acting as if Everybody is John and Trophy Dark are the same experience. Don't make shit up.

>>96136011
I was gonna argue with you until I realized we agreed on everything. Your post sounded confrontational when it really wasn't.

Just a tip if you're an actual autist and have to process and judge this vibe stuff.

>>96139171
yeah, into the odd is gonna go away any second now

>>96135846
>marketing
So you're not playing any games at all, are you?

>>96135726 (OP)
>Games that I don't nor have ever played are bad, because of a scenario that's never happened that I just made up!

>>96135726 (OP)
>documenting rulings
Nah, I will rule how I see fit in each scenario.

>>96140423
>>96140408
I was pointing out that lite systems turn crunchy & complex over time with documentation so it is absurd to have pride in how lite a system is because it has to do more with the table than the actual system how detailed the ruling/rules are

People get so defensive over marketing terms lol

>>96140473
They don't.
They don't turn crunchy and complex because no one is transcribing rullings as if they were the word of god.
They don't pride themselves on how lite they are because Fighting Fantasy has existed since the 80's with a single stat Marvel had a diceless system in the early 90's. There is no pride to be earned.

You're being retarded in public to get attention, please stop.

>>96140473
You're making shit up to be angry about. This was clear from your first post.

>>96140490
>no one is transcribing rulings as if they were the word of god
I don't understand why you believe is absurd and provocative, my players make notes all the time about the games.
As a GM, I will make note of all my rulings so the world stays believable and fair to the rest of the players at the table.

>>96140539
what? you just make it fair.
When in doubt ask the player if it feels fair and they'll tell you.
Unless someone is an asshole this isn't an issue. You're either drowning in a glass of water, your players are looking for excuses to fight you, or you're overthinking.

Some rules are good, some mechanics make things better, usually mechanics are the thing that will make different games feel different and they'll push players to make a different character to fit the mechanics they offer. Fairness is an abstraction and no mechanic or registree of rullings will make it feel fair when it doesn't, and viceversa.

>>96140518
>making up that players would take notes

You're right, it does seem unbelievable

>>96140572
>Fairness is an abstraction and no mechanic or registree of rullings will make it feel fair
I would say table time is the clearest form of universal fairness for a game, if you have multiple people you want to give everyone the spotlight to shine

Classes exist in RPGs to increase design space for roles and delegation of tasks in a clear & concise manner otherwise the loudest person will dominate the table trying to do all the things
Classless RPGs tend to work better for smaller tables of 1-3 players while class ones are better with 3-6 players

>>96135726 (OP)
Not true.

>>96135726 (OP)
>remembers all the rulings a GM makes then presents them in a 600 page document
In GMing, much like in voluteer moderation, past rulings don't stand as a precedent for future rulings.

>>96140669
It will certainly hurt the believably, trust and fairness players have. Consistency is very important on what makes someone a good mature GM

You ought to avoid changing house rules/rulings too much unless it is absolutely necessary or it was extraordinary when the ruling happened. I enjoy systems with meta rule bending points for that reason; you can give players a fun ruling but they don't expect to get that ruling every time

>>96140636
>I would say table time is the clearest form of universal fairness for a game, if you have multiple people you want to give everyone the spotlight to shine
that's a practice, it's not a rulling.
It's like cleaning after you, it makes everything nicer but it's not a rulling.
>classes
that's a mechanic, like I said they inform how the players act and that's good imo. Classless isn't lite or complex by design, if anything it's a simplification that streamlines party roles and expectations.

You didn't bring up anything that would require a rulling on the spot or why it'd need to be registered for future use.

>>96140738
you get that by being consistent in your rullings
just be fair, bro

>>96135726 (OP)
After my study of players, I've come to discover that there are three types of thought when it comes to the players and their view on how rules work.

>Type 1: Rules Are a Tool or Skill
These are players that think that knowledge and application of a rule in the game you are playing is a part of the game itself that you are meant to play. Think of your rules lawyers and MtG players that will cite an incredibly pedantic reading of a rule to create unintended effects like creating infinite tokens or infinite turns. To them, reading the rule, understanding it, then arguing for and applying it is inherent to all games, and yet are strangely silent when the other player fails to call them out for missing the rule themself. "It's their fault for not knowing the ruling." Another way for them to put it is that "rules are a weapon to win with."

>Type 2: Rules Are a Narrative Guide
These are players where they view rules as a way to guide people into the expected outcome of play, and should be overwritten or ignored the second it upsets the narrative tone of the game or the world, or just doesn't make sense. They'll play with a rule up until it starts getting in the way, and then gently nudge it aside as they already are getting the intended effect. Obviously these are your theater kids more interested in the story than a world. Rules just help you get into the mood.

>Type 3: Rules Are For Everything
I find that these types of players are the most likely to be the ones actually diagnosed with some flavor of autism. If you have one at your table, you're likely to have some philosophy of "There are Rules LAWYERS and Rule KEEPERS and they are different." They have trouble modeling the imaginary world and will always use the strictest interpretation of all rules laid out for them at all times. They will remind you of rules that negatively affect themselves and insist that they be applied even when it would not affect the outcome.

>>96140758
What's approved on a character sheet is very much a ruling by the GM, they decide what is or is not a legal character

Outside of characters, common rulings that should be documented are (meta)physics related that aren't covered by rules

>>96140817
you only know about WotC D&D
if you like it that's fine, but you have no clue about what you're saying

>>96140788
Rules are narrative tools to simulate the world that emerge out of your imaginative force of character. You get what you focus on

>>96140838
What am I saying?

>>96140817
>common rulings that should be documented are (meta)physics related that aren't covered by rules
You're approaching this scientifically as a curious creature exploring the world for the first time would - same action, done in same circumstances should have the same effect. From which stems consistency, reproductibility, and eventually the ability to extrapolate from know to predictability of the unknown.
But many people in the hobby are theatre kids, they don't care about science, they don't care about cold facts of mechanics or biology, they are driven by feelings and carve drama, or comfiness, or epicness or some such immeasurable quality that only exists in their mind.

>>96140854
So, yeah, you're type 2.

>>96140636
If you'd ever played a single TTRPG in your life, you might actually know that arguing with the GM is highly discouraged and pointless.

>>96140788
Good post. Insightful. Type 3, to me, is "Rules are Physics" and they can't get away from things like cats killing commoners or the like. Even when rules produce absurdities, these absurdities cannot (in their minds) be overruled.

>>96141462
I like that moniker better, "Rules Are Physics." I'm going to use that if I ever repost in the future.

>>96135726 (OP)
Nogames as fuck.

>>96140961
that's not science, that's autism

>>96140539
The only roleplaying you do is on this board, pretending to play games.

It's amazing that OP thinks players take notes and that, if they'd ever even take notes about a single fucking thing, that they'd take the time to meticulously note the fucking rules, of all things, to argue with the GM.

OP, because you're such a raging nogames faggot, lemme explain the colossal deep flaw in your reasoning: The fact that the rulebook already exists completely erases anyone even briefly considering the need to take notes about the fucking rules.

How the actual fuck do you think this is supposed to work? You think anytime the GM makes some off the cuff decision about something on the spot that players remind themselves to jot that down in case they have to argue about the explicit ruling that was made weeks, or even months ago? Have you even read ANY RPG rulebook in your entire fucking life, you retarded faggot?

>>96140788
None of these cover simulationist thought. The simulationist approach to rules is that the fictional world (NOT "story") is king, and the rules exist to translate actions into sensible outcomes in the world. Rules are jettisoned or modified when they produce nonsense outcomes, and rulings that make sense are retained as rules.

>>96143628
I agree that players don't usually take physical notes about rulings, but it's not at all uncommon for a player to remember how a GM ruled in a given situation and to act based on that knowledge or to call out the GM if he later rules differently in the same situation. GMs who rule inconsistently are extremely frustrating to play with.

>>96144102
The fictional world is just a story, it's just not centered around people, it's centered around the place.

>>96151357
No, it's not. You can depict a fictional world without depicting a story. Worldbuilders do it all the time. Stories are a very particular thing with a beginning, middle, end, and an arc. If it's just a series of events, it's a history, not a story.

>>96135726 (OP)
You don't document your rulings, and rule arbitrarily depending on situation. You're a fucking idiot. Kill yourself, autismo.

>>96135782
Patently wrong. It takes longer to look up a rule than me saying "The core resolution system works like this, and it applies like this in this situation". Writing it down takes even longer.

>>96151911
Sure it is. You're detailing all of the features of the world and how it works via its laws of nature and physics, and as a result of those rules, stories emerge out of them from the creatures living on it. It's the same thing with the other Type 2's focusing on story. You'll adhere to a rule until it doesn't make sense for the story, but in this case story = world. You'll always adhere to that rule up until that point, so that way it's story can be maintained.

Story is still king in world building. If you maintain the story of the world, the narratives that spring forth from it will be made.

>>96153224
That's not what story means. World does not mean story. The problem isn't just that they mean different things, but that you're actually trying to smash two very different types of players into the same group. The narrativist will ignore a rule because it wouldn't produce the appropriately dramatic outcome. The simulationist will ignore a rule because it wouldn't produce a sensible outcome. These are not the same.

>>96144102
simulationist games are not rules lite so they aren't part of the discussion itt
Unless you're doing some real time mechanics building, in which case players shouldn't need to "call you out" because the expectation is that you are defining things and taking notes as part of the play experience.

>>96144111
If you can't bring up a previous rulling to see which interpretation is going to be expected, or if both situations are being seen as independent for some reasson, you shouldn't play with that GM.

>>96156631
Sorry, I should have addressed this differently cause I think I see the issue now:

Type 2 is not trying to capture story-telling methods. Type 2 (and all of the list) is trying to capture view points on how people interact with rules. People trying to use rules in a "simulationist" sense still fall under type 2, because they view the rules as a guide for capturing their experience, with narrative experience being the easiest method to explain that. Type 2 players, including people trying to simulate a world, are going to put up with rules only insofar that it makes sense with the realism of the world they are trying to build, and will immediately throw out or ignore any rules that become counter-intuitive to that understanding because it ruins the experience.

In contrast, type 1 players don't really care about the narrative, they care about what the rules themselves say, and will not deviate from those rules because they are more interested in game states. They will only take away from the rules in mutual agreements that something is too "broken" or "op" and add things if they think there is an interesting rules interaction there.

Type 3 is are people that only understand things when presented in a rules form, and honestly is only different from type 1 as a slight nuance and because I've had enough at my tables that I felt it important to identify them because they usually have more difficulty understanding contexts outside of the rules as explained to them and adhere to them too strongly.

So, yes, type 2s also include simulationist, which in my opinion are just story telling with a world setting, but I'm not really interested in that hair-split personally.

Captcha: J0GGR

If a player started documenting my rulings like that I'd simply cut off their head.

>>96135726 (OP)
You seem to be confusing freeform/narrative with rules-lite.

Ventangle is rules-lite. It has veey simple rules and resolution mechanics, but they cover absolutely everything the game is intended to do. You could practically run the game from a script with how streamlined and concise it is.

Exalted is narrative/freeform. It's rules-dense, but these rules are intentionally ambiguous and require GM discretion and houseruling at every turn.
Uncomfortable truth, but DnD is a narrative game