Heavy / Light / Free-Form / Plotted – What is your preference?
All games outside of wargames and roleplaying games have limited replayability value. One of the main factors determining replayability value is the strategic depth of a game. A deep game is one which players can play for a long time while still discovering new strategic insights.
Some games are deeper than others: chess is deeper than tic-tac-toe and Kongai is deeper than rock-paper-scissors (even ignoring the deckbuilding aspect). All four of the games I gave in the example are discrete-time (that is, turn-based), two-player, zero-sum (meaning there is a winner and a loser) games. Tic-tac-toe and chess are sequential games, since players alternate taking turns, and rock-paper-scissors is a simultaneous-move game. Simultaneous move games are really equivalent to sequential games with hidden information: one could also play rock-paper-scissors in the following way:
Sequential Rock-Paper-Scissors
Player 1 chooses a move, but the move is not revealed to Player 2
Player 2 chooses a move.
Player 1′s move is revealed.
There has been a lot of work done on sequential games with perfect information (no hidden information), see Conway’s On Numbers and Games. Games with hidden information (such as Poker) are also heavily researched. The main focus of game theoretic research has been on games with multiple players and/or cooperative games.
I am not aware of any research specifically geared for studying how to design recreational games; part of the reason may be that the application of game theory to game design is limited. That said, the question of how to design deep games with simple rules is very mathematical.
A casual thought, however, reveals that it is actually very easy to design simple sequential games which are, for all practical purposes, unsolvable. If you design a game involving A) turing machines, B) divisibility of integers, or C) properties of graphs, you will more likely than not end up creating a game whose optimal strategy will be beyond the scope of humanity for two hundred years.
Therefore to make the question “how to design deep games” interesting, we have to impose even more severe constraints beyond formal simplicity. The mechanics of the game not only have to be simple, but also have to be ‘natural’ in a certain sense. It is hard to find the appropriate formalization of these kinds of properties; and indeed, it may be the main challenge of this kind of analysis.
That, said, once the constraints are decided, the most relevant theory for studying how to design deep games is evolutionary game theory, a theory which is actually concerned with how players in a competitive environment modify their strategy over time.
A ‘deep’ game is then one in which the strategies of the players continue to change for a long time before falling into an equilibrium state (or evolutionarily stable strategy).
This, of course, depends on the mechanism by which the agent updates their strategy.
With roleplaying games, we have a series of different concepts entirely. Most commonly we know these concepts as “Rules Light”, “Rules Heavy”, “Free-Form”, and “Plotted”. And what is the difference?
Rules Light
The actual definition of this type of game is a bit vague, but in essence a game is rules light if the mechanics don’t get in the way of roleplaying, including character creation. A rules light role playing game makes it each to create a character and get right into the action. There aren’t phonebooks full of rules, bag-fulls of dice, and even a non-gamer can grasp the basic concepts in a short time.
Rules Heavy
This type of game was most popular in the mid to late 1990s. Rules heavy games are so complex that you really need to have the rules for what you want to do right in front of you to reference as you play. There are often scads of dice required, several thick rulebooks and new players can get very frustrated.
Free-Form Games
These, simply put, are a type of role-playing game which employ minimal or no rules. Instead, actions are adjudicated on the spot by the referee. There are also several variations, some of which lack a referee.
Plotted Games
Also known as “Structured”, these type of games have an overall plot / storyline that is adhered to, with set and often complex rules that are designed to cover any situation.
In my travels around the interwebs, I came across this diagram which more or less nails the differences, and gives game examples for each main type of game (click to embiggen):
I personally grew up on rules light systems. I will always have a fondness for OSR – but I personally prefer rules heavy systems.
Why? I like having a plenty of rules available in books because it promotes balance, consistancy and allows for effective planning while out of contact with the GM. And a rules heavy game can take a lot of load off a GM because rather than having to decide everything on his own he can simply refer his players to the manuals when they have questions. If they come up with something he disagrees with he can always make his own rulings.
But without a doubt, my impression is that there are too many damn rules systems out there anyway, and people just want to play. If there’s only one rule, awesome – less lawyers, less setup, and less concern for implementation. It works for a lot of people. And I’m always happy to play in light systems – as there are great ones out there.
Now in the case of free-form and plotted – while I grew up on the latter – I really do prefer the former. There have been such fantastic innovations in the recent years with free-form games that I absolutely love taking part in them.
What, dear readers, is your take? What do you prefer, and why?
I would have to say my preference strongly varies, based on the story being spun. For low-growth, world shaking tales of epic heroism, I generally prefer free form, rules light systems. For grittier stories, rife with violence, my tendency leans in the plotted, rules heavy direction.
As of late, the desire to automate mechanics and book keeping with software has made “rules heavy” systems, like Hero, very attractive. I’m looking forward to the day when we can relegate all the mechanical elements to tablets/phones/laptops + tv/projector, and make RPGs as accessible to casual gamers as “Angry Birds.”
I don’t know if “rules light” and “rules heavy” is at all the distinction that takes the load off the GM like you’re talking about. I think the thing that takes the most load off the GM with respect to rules (in a system where there is a GM and the GM acts as “arbiter” or whatever, that is), is having rules that apply to the GM.* There are both “rules light” and “rules heavy” systems that do this. (Also, the biggest “load” on GM, in my opinion, is plotted story, assuming the GM’s not using some pre-published scenario material.)
Beyond that, because I’m a perfectionist, I find rules heavy games very, very stressful to GM, just because I assume everyone thinks I should have the answer to everything right away, because, duh, I’m the GM.
ALSO! I would call Dogs in the Vineyard pretty rules light, as compared to most of the games on the handy chart, anyway. And, it requires ridiculous quantities of dice. Just saying. (I know the thing about bags of dice totally was not the point. Sorry. I can’t help mention DitV EVERY TIME I talk about RPGs, because, teenage old west mormon lawmen.)
*This is a little off topic, but having rules that apply to the GM (other than “the GM is God and makes all final decisions,” obviously) also makes the game a lot more fair, which makes the game a lot more accessible to new players, and to “minority” players who might feel that they are at a disadvantage due to some completely understandable subconscious discrimination on the part of the GM (whether feeling like this is valid or not is really not the point here). It also makes it easier for GMs to have significant others in the game without worrying as much about whether they’re giving preferential treatment or over-compensating and being too hard on their partner. In case you can’t tell, I’m very in favor of specific rules that apply to the GM.