Great terminology! I like games with little crunch but I crave completeness. I guess the ideal game for me is low-crunch, high-completeness, high-believability and high-ruts-escaping (to steal another term for you).
The mechanics should be paying their rent, and be fully baked. I'm willing to sacrifice some believability for ease of gameplay: no need to have multiple sizes of sacks, all horses require the same amount of food regardless of size, all people require the same amount of food regardless of size, i don't care about the difference between a glaive and a guisarme, etc.
Crunch needs to pay its own rent, either by easing friction of establishing facts or by creating an interesting game to think about (variable weapon damage is a positive example, the grappling rules from 1e and any of the million weather systems are negative examples).
---
Something I see frequently is someone complain about how a game feels half-baked or unfinished or whatever, and someone else defends it as rules-lite, or that it leaves room for rulings.
I think these folks are talking past each other! Tic-tac-toe is fully baked and rules light. You don't need a ton of rules for all of your rules to be complete, you just need to make sure that you cover all of your bases. B/X's combat system is *much* lighter than AD&D's but *more complete*. Into the Odd's combat system is light and complete, but it's magic item system is light and incomplete. Pathfinder 2e's combat system is crunchy but complete.
I'm desperately trying to keep my believability but also keep my gameplay ease as well. It breaks my heart when the players get invested in small fictional details ("my character always packs extra-large sacks!") and then it doesn't matter during play. I'm toying around with mechanics where I make large tables with many types of small fictional differences. Like if the PCs wants to travel then the GM rolls on a big 1d100 table and result 53 is "if the amount of feed needed is less than 30 pounds per day, the travel is successful". Then the PC who insists on low-feed camels have an argument and a chance to shine but it mostly doesn't matter since we only handle one piece of crunch per action.
Maybe I should say that my ideal game is high-completeness, high-believability and high-ruts-escaping, with as little crunch as possible that's needed to achieve that (but no less).
The original three games all have rules for domain (name) level play. This aspect is distinctly lacking from more modern games. How essential are rules for domain level play to a benchmark of completeness? Does completeness imply support for PvP play (which is supported by the O3)?
> The original three games all have rules for domain (name) level play.
Sort of :D
B/X has stuff like this:
"Fighters with enough money may build a castle (see p. X52). When a fighter reaches 9th level (Lord/Lady), the character may become a Baron or Baroness and the land cleared and controlled by that character will be called a Barony."
And then X52 says
"When building a castle or stronghold, a character must first clear a hex or local area of monsters, entering the hex with a force of men and dealing with any lairs the DM has set up in the area. (The DM may also require the character get a land grant from the local ruler, if any.) The player should draw complete plans of the stronghold, using the guidelines given. After the DM approves the plans, an engineer should be hired, and the construction begins.
When the building is complete, the character may want to clear the surrounding area of monsters. The cleared area will remain free of monsters as long as it is patrolled. Patrols usually range up to 18 miles from a castle or stronghold, though jungles, swamps, and mountains will require a garrison every 6 miles to keep the area clear.
Settlers can be attracted to cleared areas by spending money on improvements (inns, mills, boatyards, etc.) or advertising. The costs and the number of settlers who move into the area are up to the DM. The settlers will pay taxes (10 gp per year or whatever the DM decides) to help maintain the holding and the character's mercenaries."
So like, yeah - technically these are domain rules, but this this is hardly playble.
> How essential are rules for domain level play to a benchmark of completeness?
Totally unrelated! Completeness, as I defined it, is checking that the rules that you *do* write don't bring you into undefined areas by following them directly.
In fact, B/X would be *more* complete if it dropped the domain rules entirely, as the domain rules are incomplete. How does one clear a hex? How much stuff in in that hex? A garrison is required every 6 miles, but what is a garrison? How expensive is it, and how many soldiers are required to staff the garrison? How many settlers are attracted to the area when I spend money? What does an inn, mill, bootyard, etc cost? What are the benefits of having an inn vs a mill? And so on.
Not having rules for stuff is totally okay! This piece is trying to make sure that the rules you *do* have are internally complete.
Thank you. I wasn't able to understand your point from the examples in the article. The examples in your response are much clearer to me.
By your logic, it would seem that Stravagante! is a more "complete" game than any of the original 3, even though its rules page count is a total of 4. If you are not familiar, it is made by Penflower Ink on itch.io.
Taking a read through the Stravagante rules, it seems very incomplete.
> Stuck: No Actions until freed
How does one become freed?
> Unconscious: No Actions until awoken.
How does one get awoken? Can you awake by yourself? Can someone awake you immediately? Can they do it in combat?
> Huge list of complications
How does "sudden illness" play out - I don't see illness rules. Same with existential crisis, loss of hope, disorientation, paranoia, etc
> Shield: 2 Additional Hits, while raised.
How does raising a shield work? Is there a cost to raising it, or can I say it's raised all the time?
and so on
A good way to phrase it is "I shouldn't have to immediately make a ruling as a direct result of following a rule". Rather, the designer should notice that their rule implies you need to immediately make a ruling, make that ruling themself, and then add it to the rules to *complete* the rule.
For instance, we can complete the Unconscious rule by saying "No actions until an ally takes 10 minutes and succeeds at a wits action. Otherwise, after 24h attempt a Stamina action to regain consciousness." Note how this version closes the loop - all of what we need to know to resolve how unconsciousness works is included in the rules text.
Great terminology! I like games with little crunch but I crave completeness. I guess the ideal game for me is low-crunch, high-completeness, high-believability and high-ruts-escaping (to steal another term for you).
That's really close to where I am too!
The mechanics should be paying their rent, and be fully baked. I'm willing to sacrifice some believability for ease of gameplay: no need to have multiple sizes of sacks, all horses require the same amount of food regardless of size, all people require the same amount of food regardless of size, i don't care about the difference between a glaive and a guisarme, etc.
Crunch needs to pay its own rent, either by easing friction of establishing facts or by creating an interesting game to think about (variable weapon damage is a positive example, the grappling rules from 1e and any of the million weather systems are negative examples).
---
Something I see frequently is someone complain about how a game feels half-baked or unfinished or whatever, and someone else defends it as rules-lite, or that it leaves room for rulings.
I think these folks are talking past each other! Tic-tac-toe is fully baked and rules light. You don't need a ton of rules for all of your rules to be complete, you just need to make sure that you cover all of your bases. B/X's combat system is *much* lighter than AD&D's but *more complete*. Into the Odd's combat system is light and complete, but it's magic item system is light and incomplete. Pathfinder 2e's combat system is crunchy but complete.
I'm desperately trying to keep my believability but also keep my gameplay ease as well. It breaks my heart when the players get invested in small fictional details ("my character always packs extra-large sacks!") and then it doesn't matter during play. I'm toying around with mechanics where I make large tables with many types of small fictional differences. Like if the PCs wants to travel then the GM rolls on a big 1d100 table and result 53 is "if the amount of feed needed is less than 30 pounds per day, the travel is successful". Then the PC who insists on low-feed camels have an argument and a chance to shine but it mostly doesn't matter since we only handle one piece of crunch per action.
Maybe I should say that my ideal game is high-completeness, high-believability and high-ruts-escaping, with as little crunch as possible that's needed to achieve that (but no less).
The original three games all have rules for domain (name) level play. This aspect is distinctly lacking from more modern games. How essential are rules for domain level play to a benchmark of completeness? Does completeness imply support for PvP play (which is supported by the O3)?
> The original three games all have rules for domain (name) level play.
Sort of :D
B/X has stuff like this:
"Fighters with enough money may build a castle (see p. X52). When a fighter reaches 9th level (Lord/Lady), the character may become a Baron or Baroness and the land cleared and controlled by that character will be called a Barony."
And then X52 says
"When building a castle or stronghold, a character must first clear a hex or local area of monsters, entering the hex with a force of men and dealing with any lairs the DM has set up in the area. (The DM may also require the character get a land grant from the local ruler, if any.) The player should draw complete plans of the stronghold, using the guidelines given. After the DM approves the plans, an engineer should be hired, and the construction begins.
When the building is complete, the character may want to clear the surrounding area of monsters. The cleared area will remain free of monsters as long as it is patrolled. Patrols usually range up to 18 miles from a castle or stronghold, though jungles, swamps, and mountains will require a garrison every 6 miles to keep the area clear.
Settlers can be attracted to cleared areas by spending money on improvements (inns, mills, boatyards, etc.) or advertising. The costs and the number of settlers who move into the area are up to the DM. The settlers will pay taxes (10 gp per year or whatever the DM decides) to help maintain the holding and the character's mercenaries."
So like, yeah - technically these are domain rules, but this this is hardly playble.
> How essential are rules for domain level play to a benchmark of completeness?
Totally unrelated! Completeness, as I defined it, is checking that the rules that you *do* write don't bring you into undefined areas by following them directly.
In fact, B/X would be *more* complete if it dropped the domain rules entirely, as the domain rules are incomplete. How does one clear a hex? How much stuff in in that hex? A garrison is required every 6 miles, but what is a garrison? How expensive is it, and how many soldiers are required to staff the garrison? How many settlers are attracted to the area when I spend money? What does an inn, mill, bootyard, etc cost? What are the benefits of having an inn vs a mill? And so on.
Not having rules for stuff is totally okay! This piece is trying to make sure that the rules you *do* have are internally complete.
Thank you. I wasn't able to understand your point from the examples in the article. The examples in your response are much clearer to me.
By your logic, it would seem that Stravagante! is a more "complete" game than any of the original 3, even though its rules page count is a total of 4. If you are not familiar, it is made by Penflower Ink on itch.io.
Taking a read through the Stravagante rules, it seems very incomplete.
> Stuck: No Actions until freed
How does one become freed?
> Unconscious: No Actions until awoken.
How does one get awoken? Can you awake by yourself? Can someone awake you immediately? Can they do it in combat?
> Huge list of complications
How does "sudden illness" play out - I don't see illness rules. Same with existential crisis, loss of hope, disorientation, paranoia, etc
> Shield: 2 Additional Hits, while raised.
How does raising a shield work? Is there a cost to raising it, or can I say it's raised all the time?
and so on
A good way to phrase it is "I shouldn't have to immediately make a ruling as a direct result of following a rule". Rather, the designer should notice that their rule implies you need to immediately make a ruling, make that ruling themself, and then add it to the rules to *complete* the rule.
For instance, we can complete the Unconscious rule by saying "No actions until an ally takes 10 minutes and succeeds at a wits action. Otherwise, after 24h attempt a Stamina action to regain consciousness." Note how this version closes the loop - all of what we need to know to resolve how unconsciousness works is included in the rules text.