--------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Question by Gunslinger on theRPGSite:
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Something Old Geezer said got me thinking that rules heavy and story
games are both trying to accomplish the goal of fair play by the GM.
Both are built to minimize where the GM has final say over
resolution. I'm starting to believe that the market for each of
these games stemmed from similar playing experiences. One is using
mechanics and the other is using player input. Preferences may vary
about the implementation but I don't know if there is actually an
argument that one is doing something the other is not. They're
trying to take away the responsibility of the GM as final arbiter
for fair play. The GM has the most control over the game when the
system falls somewhere in the middle of those two methodologies.

It could be this is what makes me so confused about trad vs. story
gaming.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
My Reply:
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I think there is a correlation in some cases between the Rules Heavy
games and the Story Games. But the distinction is not really well
defined by these terms. As far as I can tell the goal of Story Games
is creating good Story (however the designers may define that).
That's their main Goal. They also tend to include a Player
Empowerment Creative Agenda because the same people who gravitated
toward Story Games also feel that the GMs have too much control over
the story. But the purpose of their "movement" is to create games
that produce good Story, primarily, and Player Empowerment is one of
the ways they attempt to achieve that goal. Their theory, right or
wrong, is that Players influence over Story creates better Story.
Perhaps.

On the other hand I do not think that Rules Heavy games have the
goal of "being Rules Heavy", though they might seem that way. I
think their real agenda is 1) to simulate reality better 2) to
create more definition for the GM so that there is less in-game
adjudication necessary 3) to sell more books. ie - More rules, more
books, more sales. Works for D&D anyway.

However, that said, the goal of D&D, I think, was not to have lots
of rules simply because they said, we want a Rules Heavy game. I
think that it is incidental that the game turned out this way. My
sense is that D&D is split between two often competing goals: 1)
have a rules oriented game because a lot of Players like lots of
rules 2) create good story, not necessarily in that order. Sometimes
these two goals come into conflict. Other times they work fine
together. To a certain degree that depends on the crowd playing the
game. I doubt, however, that D&D acquired such a huge set of rules
because the designers decided they needed to limit GM Fiat. GM Fiat
is still writ large over the entire concept of the D&D system.

The upshot is that Player Empowerment and Rules Heavy share the same
effect: they tend to limit the discretion of the GM. But I don't
think this is because the goal was the same. It almost seems as
though it were a coincidence that it turns out this way.
__________________
* Aspire to Inspire *
Literary Role Playing Game Society of Westchester

--------------------------------------------------------------------
REF: http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7700
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Thoughts?

- Mark