Dunheved
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed 11 Mar 2020, 02:07
Location: UK

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Tue 19 Oct 2021, 10:59

On the other hand, look at the Kickstarter campaign with all those stretch goals. These are specific points when the writers (and the supporting backers with their commentaries during the live period of the campaign) added material to the Core Rules. If those Stretch Goals had not been met (ha ha, fat chance!) then these sections would not have been put into the Alpha. And so never appear as part of the Core Rules. In essence these rules could all be viewed as Optional, because they were not in the original product as the Kickstarter opened. (a POV I would at least consider)

The following Stretch Goals explicitly stated they were to be additions to the CORE rules book. (In the previous run of TOR they mainly appeared in later supplements.)


7. Nameless things = RULES
10. An adventure = description
12. Magical Treasure = RULES
22, 23, 24, Patrons = RULES and Description
26. Custom sheets = player aid
27. Eye of Mordor = RULES

Both Magical Treasure and Eye of Mordor rules impact directly on play - expanding the pre Kickstarter Core system, and influencing the original Attributes, Cultures, Hope and Shadow rules. Nameless Things is much more of a pure add on, not feeding back into the Core.

When I read Optional rules in any system, I have found them to be another insight into the intent of the rulemakers in general. And although I certainly agree that such extra rules are not guaranteed to make things 'better' I will more than happily take them as bonus information. The key for me is that such information is organised inside the rule book so as not to jumble up the Necessary Core with many forward and backward references.
For example, I actually view the Council Rules as Optional. They introduce a mechanic nicely - the 3, 6 , 9 Rolls for Successes idea. But other than that, the details and the discussions on the forum reinforce my first impression that they are an answer to a problem that didn't exist. (YMMV) Fortunately the Council Rules are discreetly positioned in the body of the text, and are easy to by-pass. Good rule design and layout. Even though the roots are not being stuck to.
 
Sebastian
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu 01 Oct 2020, 04:58

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Tue 19 Oct 2021, 18:05

Well, at the end of the day, you need to decide, which rules to put into a book and which not. With production prices today you don’t just keep writing rules. If you want to design a rules-medium system, you have limitations. You need to cut it short and I consider this a good thing.

The Core mechanics since 1e were Skill checks, Combat, Journeys and Councils. That didn’t change. But they already put in some of the things that were scattered between different source books: Magical Treasure and The Eye.

All I can say is, I‘m happy with the rules as they are. But I also say, that I‘m not the LM that follows every rule as written. The rules need to support my story. No rule in any RPG does that 100%, so I‘m used to mix and match, even in TOR, one of my favorite games.
 
Niallism
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue 29 Jun 2021, 13:56

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Tue 19 Oct 2021, 19:43

I think pretending that marketing on KS is completely honest is disingenuous and not the basis for… anything, really.
 
Dunheved
Posts: 494
Joined: Wed 11 Mar 2020, 02:07
Location: UK

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Wed 20 Oct 2021, 09:41

@niallism. Not sure what you mean here. Disingenuous is a strong word.
Are you suggesting that the writers knew they would pass the 10 million krona level before they launched , and therefore cynically withheld e.g. the Eye of Mordor rules to act out the idea of adding this information later? It is not how I read it as I followed the comments around the campaign page at that time. It is certainly not how I view the authors' affection and respect for the material, nor for its fan base.

Or do you find my expression of a POV ( i.e. added rules are in effect Optional) disingenuous? I would certainly accept a comment that my opinion may be naive concerning how Kickstarter campaigns are run or organised. But if added rules are only to be taken as extensions of the Core, then the system cannot evolve or replace rules that may, in hindsight, have been not as effective as intended.

The OP expressed their view that the Core was too "lite". They implied that further rules or details would have helped their playing experience. Others expressed that they felt Core was satisfactory for them. (No surprise there, we are different in what we want or enjoy.) I fall more in the camp that would want more crunch: but as Sebastian rightly said, of course you cannot put the TOR2e version of EVERYTHING that was in TOR 1e. My opinion is simply that the publishers can add as much as they like in supplements and I will view all New Rules introduced as Optional. However, I also hold the view that several of the rules in the Core are optional, and not sacrosanct. If all the stretch goals Rules were omitted, is the basic game the same? Maybe.
 
Terminus Est
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed 20 Oct 2021, 15:07

Re: Rules-lite vs simulationist

Wed 20 Oct 2021, 15:10

As someone who enjoys soloing through TOR 1e with it’s pre-written adventures, and has implemented a rough system for that purpose, it strikes me that, in this context, it’s not a question of a rules-heavy style of play vs a narrative style of play. Indeed, rules absolutely drive the narrative because no one else does - and that, for me, is the pleasure: a narrative organically arising purely from rules and dice rolls. In other words, granularity fills in the gaps left by an absence of cooperative storytelling.
Which is why I house-ruled and added plenty to the game.
Subsequently, when Strider Mode comes out, I’m curious to see how a relatively rules-lite,narrative-heavy system would work as a solo experience.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests