Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7qW_7J9o-k
As usual, don't bother clicking. I have an aggressive-aggressive response:
The genius in this video breaks one of the cardinal rules of life. It's better to be considered stupid in silence than open your mouth and prove it. This guy thinks there are just two ways to design RPGs and just two ways to enjoy RPGs. This is why he's a moron. He's passive-aggressive because this entire video was brought on by someone disagreeing with him at some point in time, likely someone chastising him for his piss poor design. I wouldn't know, I wasn't the person involved, but it seems from the video that he really likes having negative space in his head.
So the entire video puts up a false dichotomy of rules heavy vs rules light games. He places certain "qualities" next to each and nonsensically elaborates over the course of the video showing his preference throughout. He obviously loves them rules light games, though he actually prefers minimalist trash games that are so far off the end of the spectrum they can only spuriously be called games. And as I said before there are only two decent minimalist games.
So let's go through these false distinctions one at a time. Rules heavy on the left and Rules 'light' on the right (yeah I see what you did there, jackass. I know why you used the color schemes you did, too).
Explicit Rules --> Implicit Rules
Implicit rules aren't a thing. I could say "next" here and move on, but let me explain - A rule is a thing. A lack of a thing isn't a thing. It's a lack of a thing. I feel like I'm explaining object permanence to an asshole. If something is missing, it's not some brilliant tactical decision (foreshadowing!). More than likely it's laziness or the lack of proper playtesting not presenting the gap to the designer to fix. It's bad design. It would make more sense to categorize these as detailed rules vs broad rules. But this guy's never been with a broad before so let's move on.
Low Adjudication --> High Adjudication
This is maybe not the first time I wondered if this idiot knows how words work, but it's definitely the most egregious. He thinks "Adjudication" is the GM determining how a thing happens. He thinks recalling a rule and applying it effectively is 'Low Adjudication' whereas making shit up whole cloth is 'High Adjudication'. You have it backwards jackass. One is designing architecture of a building, the other is releasing one's bowels on a toilet.
Low Trust --> High Trust
Again this terminology is backwards. Having a GM who knows and applies heavy rules fairly is a high-trust mindset. If they're just going to make everything the fuck up anyway you would call it a "low trust" mindset. As in you don't trust the DM to be able to memorize the back of a cereal box. Because that's low effort.
Rules --> Rulings
When this chestnut came up, I knew I'd be typing this blog post. Again, rulings aren't what people seem to think they are. It doesn't mean the GM can make up whatever shit they want at every turn for any reason at the drop of a hat. It doesn't mean you forgo the game as written and just do whatever. Rulings are important on either end of the spectrum and especially in heavier games that have gaps as once gaps are filled, they need to stay filled. A ruling CREATES a rule. It doesn't vanish into the ether as soon as it's used, never to be seen again. It's actually meant to expand a ruleset. And it's meant to be specific to the table - to the players in question. Because another table somewhere else didn't have whatever the situation that the ruling was built to fix. Literally everyone forgets this and uses the term improperly, even the asshole who first coined it.
Robust Coverage --> Negative Space
This is a fancy way of saying "Design effort --> No design effort" This is why he's not talking about actual rules light games like Microlite20 or Basic Fantasy or even Over the Edge. He's talking about Mork Bork, Knave, Cairn, and other bullshit that could be shat out over an afternoon and make a million dollars given the proper mid bitch selling it to simps who will never play it, merely buy it and play B/X while pretending to play it.
Combat as Sport --> Combat as War
This is the last one I'm getting in to. He thinks the following is remotely dependent on mechanical density. That being a lesser rules density would equate to, for lack of a better explanation - more unpredictability in result. I say that because sports in and of themselves are just simulated wars, with just as varied of outcome, so his meaning is lost if taken at face value. I've seen ultralight no effort trash games forgo initiative and attack rolls, meaning two vectors for unpredictability are GONE. This is solidifying procedure and minimizing interest in outcome. Because it's static. Boring. Predictable. It's a "sport" not a "war". Or whatever.
He ends on a question: Which is tactical? The answer is the one that gives you the tools to actually make tactical decisions. And that's on both sides of the screen, champ. If you have negative space in your tactical options, you have negative tactics. That's just the hard truth. All of these are hard truths.
Bonus Round: Player Buy In
At one point I don't care enough to go back and find, this moron said that Rules Heavy games require _LESS_ player buy in than Rules Light games. Like playing Candyland is hard compared to Twilight Imperium. No jackass. Your shitty little microgame that takes 2 minutes to learn AND make a character doesn't require an ounce of "player buy in" in comparison to a game that you could fail to fully know the extent of after playing in weekly four-hour sessions for two months. I could grab 4 idiots off the street and play Mothershit with them inside of the time it takes to boil an egg. If I tried that shit with Hackmaster they would leave by the time I started discussing how to handle the BP economy to buy their class.
So at the end of the day these distinctions are all rather pointless. You're comparing black and white when the answer is gray. It's up to each person to find the shade of gray they like. And while some attributes can lean one direction or the other, there's no constructive reason to discuss it. You're either going to tear down one side or the other, in either case making your own bias obvious. That's why this entire exercise is passive-aggressive.
Stop being such a bitch.
