There are “rules-heavy” and “rules-light” RPGs, and there are people who prefer each.
Hmm, I think that this is not a good example. I like “rules-heavy” RPGs (indeed, I think that designers and fans of “rules-light” RPGs are very often thoroughly confused about what the consequences of “rules-lightness” actually are). But the “rules” of an RPG and the kinds of “rules” that I think @quetzal_rainbow’s comment is talking about are not really the same thing.
The “rules” of an RPG are mostly not constraints that prevent players from doing things, but rather mechanisms that enable players to do things. (For example, the 3rd edition of D&D has rules for crafting magic items; the 5th edition of D&D has no such rules. The effect of this is not that players in 5e are more free and less constrained than players in 3e. The effect, rather, is that players in 3e can do something that players in 5e generally cannot.)
Of course there are some rules in an RPG that are mostly constraints… but, well, those are also the rules that people are least likely to like. (Although they may be necessary in order for the game as a whole to be enjoyable! In this, they mirror the sorts of rules we’re most likely to encounter in real life.)
I’m happy with the example of rules-heavy/crunchy RPGs as evidence that some people like rules, but I agree it is not a good evidence for whether people like constraints. I don’t know what @quetzal_rainbow might have meant by “nobody likes rules”, other than the surface meaning. Maybe they will clarify. I wouldn’t have replied to a statement like “nobody likes to be constrained by complex rules that are costly to follow and have no benefits”, for example, but that’s not what they said.
I completely agree that rules can be mechanisms that enable people to do things. For example, many social partner dances have rules about how the dancers move and dance together. At first glance these look like pure constraints. However, they are also enabling mechanisms for joint movements that otherwise would not work (at all, as well, as easily, etc.) in partnered freestyle. This is one of the things I like about rules.
Hmm, I think that this is not a good example. I like “rules-heavy” RPGs (indeed, I think that designers and fans of “rules-light” RPGs are very often thoroughly confused about what the consequences of “rules-lightness” actually are). But the “rules” of an RPG and the kinds of “rules” that I think @quetzal_rainbow’s comment is talking about are not really the same thing.
The “rules” of an RPG are mostly not constraints that prevent players from doing things, but rather mechanisms that enable players to do things. (For example, the 3rd edition of D&D has rules for crafting magic items; the 5th edition of D&D has no such rules. The effect of this is not that players in 5e are more free and less constrained than players in 3e. The effect, rather, is that players in 3e can do something that players in 5e generally cannot.)
Of course there are some rules in an RPG that are mostly constraints… but, well, those are also the rules that people are least likely to like. (Although they may be necessary in order for the game as a whole to be enjoyable! In this, they mirror the sorts of rules we’re most likely to encounter in real life.)
I’m happy with the example of rules-heavy/crunchy RPGs as evidence that some people like rules, but I agree it is not a good evidence for whether people like constraints. I don’t know what @quetzal_rainbow might have meant by “nobody likes rules”, other than the surface meaning. Maybe they will clarify. I wouldn’t have replied to a statement like “nobody likes to be constrained by complex rules that are costly to follow and have no benefits”, for example, but that’s not what they said.
I completely agree that rules can be mechanisms that enable people to do things. For example, many social partner dances have rules about how the dancers move and dance together. At first glance these look like pure constraints. However, they are also enabling mechanisms for joint movements that otherwise would not work (at all, as well, as easily, etc.) in partnered freestyle. This is one of the things I like about rules.