4th of April 2025
Continuing where I left off from last week discussing rules light and rules heavy systems, I wanted to discuss the idea between soft and hard rules.
Soft and hard rules, at least in my thinking, refers to the ability of a system to flex and be adaptable to different situations and uses. In general, this tends to align with light and heavy rules – lighter systems tend to be “softer” while heavier rules systems tend to be “harder”.
Something like Dread is very rules light. You pull a block from the Jenga tower whenever your character needs to make a “test” and if the tower falls, they die. Easy enough, and incredibly flexible. The system can be run over multiple genres, though it suits horror or horror adjacent ones best, and any and all checks can be encompassed within the “pull a block” system. The facilitator can even call for multiple blocks to be called if they feel the circumstances warrant something difficult. On the other hand, something like Pathfinder has a larger and significantly more extensive ruleset. It is harder to change the rules or bend them in any way without accidentally treading on a different rule or breaking some element of the game. While the light and soft vs heavy and hard tends to be true, it is not always the case.
For example, Alice is Missing is a fantastic role-playing game that is on the lighter end of rulesets. However, it is a far less flexible than a heavier system like D&D 5e. In part, this is due to the semi-strict genre and setting of the system. In part, it is due to inflexible elements such as players needing to draw certain kinds of cards at particular times. On the other hand, while 5E has many rules, it doesn’t cover every situation. However, it is easy for the facilitator to make a call using simpler elements of the rules system – particularly Advantage and Disadvantage. This simple system offers clear ways to adapt a standard roll to account for some unusual changes in circumstance that the rules have not accounted for. The advantage/disadvantage system is an excellent flexibility system that makes life easier for facilitators.
In writing the VOW, I am not just considering how light and heavy my rule system is, but also how flexible it is. I want facilitators (known as “The Voice” in my game) to have simple and clear understandings of not just the rules, but how to bend them. In doing so, I am hoping to make the system appear like it can handle many genres and areas of play, while also being easier to facilitate. This is especially important given that I am attempting to make the game competitive. Facilitators need to be able to flex the rules in a fair and understandable way when the situation calls for it. Ideally, experienced players may also be able to make assumptions about how the system can flex for different situations. Currently I have an advantage/disadvantage analogue whereby players normally have success on a 5 or 6 roll in their D6 pool but can be given “advantage” (success on a 4 or higher), or “disadvantage” (success on a 6 only) as the difficulty of the situation may require. The important question is whether this can be extended to multiple elements of the system so that facilitators have an easy understanding of when and how to bend the rules to best simulate the intent behind the actions at the table in a fair and meaningful way.
I suppose we’ll have to wait and find out, but until then, I’ll be thinking and writing about it here.
