PDA

View Full Version : Do you prefer rules heavy or rules light TTRPG?



Matre
2013-09-18, 10:52 PM
I wanted to get peoples' thoughts on rules-heavy or rules-light systems, specifically for the "role-playing" portion of TTRPGs, IE, not combat.

When I say "rules heavy", I mean having rules that target each DC very specifically. DnD, for example, has very specific rules for dealing with how falling works. I think the benefit of this kind of system tends to be how straight-forward it is: in the previous example, if I am in a game and falling, I know exactly how the game intends for me to deal with that situation. I think there's something to be said for having rule books that provide rules, so to speak.

When I say "rules light", I'm talking about games that have general guidelines for determining how difficult tasks should be within the system, so that you can set your own DC's for challenges. I think the benefit of this kind of system is that you aren't forced to consistently look up all of this information whenever anything happens, and you can just wing it with a good general idea of what the result should be.

Thoughts?

obryn
2013-09-18, 10:58 PM
I prefer rules-light or rules-medium most of the time, but I'm very flexible depending on what system best fits the mood/theme I want to achieve.

-O

Knaight
2013-09-18, 11:13 PM
I generally favor rules light games, mostly because I don't like dealing with subsystem after subsystem, and I really dislike having to either memorize huge amounts of preset difficulties or look things up.

Kaun
2013-09-18, 11:14 PM
Light to medium. To many rules just slows the game down.

TuggyNE
2013-09-18, 11:25 PM
I prefer rules-heavy, because my imagination is much better at providing details than broad strokes, so having a framework to build on makes things a lot more practical.

Matre
2013-09-18, 11:28 PM
That's a fair amount of replys favoring lighter rules.

Kind of a tweak on the OP then: how do you feel about systems that have fairly light rules for things like how successful actions are determined (IE, no defined DC's), but have more defined parameters for how role playing is supposed to be played out? The best example I can think of off-hand is Mouse Guard. In the Mouse Guard universe, when you make a character, you answer several questions about your character (things like what his goals are, what his flaws are, etc), and that information is a used to determine "leveling" and character progression.

Edit: Didn't see you there Tuggy D:

Kol Korran
2013-09-18, 11:33 PM
My group have recently moved from D&D to FATE core, which is a very rules light system. I think i can summarize the main points of difference as follows:
1) The game flows much faster with a rules light system. This is due to less time spent on finding all kind of rules and trying to count for so many modifiers, effects and specific rules for so many specific situations.

2) Much easier to improvise, and as a consequence it's also MUCH easier to do unexpected things, and to take the adventure in different routes than the prepared material accounts for. This is due to being able to just come up with something relatively easily when the PCs do something unexpected. Say the characters decide to visit a different local then expected. In D&D you may need to plan for the stats of the place, the NPCs (which are a hassle with skills, equipment, feats and such) and potential combat encounters and more. In FATE you can whip up everything you need by concept alone. Much faster.

This is HUGE! Enables a much more open game.

3) Significantly lessened prep time: This is the main reason why I moved to D&D. In order to make a good enough adventure and situation, it would take me many hours as DM to prep- stats for enemies, NPCs, dungeon walls, traps, settlements, DCs for environmental obstacles, treasure by WBL and more... This was highly frustrating, highly draining, and highly time consuming. As real life have serious constraints, this usually meant that I couldn't prepare enough or that we needed to postpone meetings. Most of all though- it really took a toll of me and the other DM.

With Fate preparation is extremely easy, and dircets concepts into mechanics directly, which is an immense time saver. Time demands have come down to about 1/4 of the time, and preparing sessions is actually quite fun.

4) Richness of possibilities: D&D has this to be said for it: The huge amount of data for it (which partly stems from the numerous rules) have given a very rich ground to sprout ideas from, and more importently, a more solid foundation for players to act from for rules oriented players. The FATE mechanics feel a bit similar in most aspect after awhile, and somewhat lacking in complexity, which D&D does provide. This is mostly in combat though, FATe deals with social aspects betterthan D&D (Which lets face it, sucks big time in this department). I'm still learning the system, so still seeing to it.

Edit: Oh, this was written while I was writing.

how do you feel about systems that have fairly light rules for things like how successful actions are determined (IE, no defined DC's), but have more defined parameters for how role playing is supposed to be played out?
That is not necesserily afeature of a rules light system. I haven't played it, but I heard burning wheel has a very complex system, and a heavy emphasis on roleplaying becoming part of mechanincs.

FATE core makes the the concepts, or main issues of the character into the main game mechanics: THese are called Aspects, and then can be used to better a character's chances (when relevant), or complicate her life. Say she has "Sworn enemy of the Empire" as an aspect, then she might get bonuses when she fights the empire, but the empire must also seek her out, hunt her , and target her more specifically, and much more.

The aspects are also used to create adventures, but that's a slightly more difficult matter. Basically, the aspects (be they of the character, NPCs or setting) drive the game more or less, hey get the party into complications, and help them shone when facing them. I really like it since it means that everything practically can become a main issue in the game with relative ease, without needing to be elaborately translated into other game elements, which may not suffice, or may not be adequate. This gives a LOT of freedon in character concept, much more than "Race/ class/ build", and focuses on the narrative concept of the character.

Hope this helps,
Kol.

Matre
2013-09-18, 11:44 PM
My group have recently moved from D&D to FATE core, which is a very rules light system. I think i can summarize the main points of difference as follows:
1) The game flows much faster with a rules light system. This is due to less time spent on finding all kind of rules and trying to count for so many modifiers, effects and specific rules for so many specific situations.

2) Much easier to improvise, and as a consequence it's also MUCH easier to do unexpected things, and to take the adventure in different routes than the prepared material accounts for. This is due to being able to just come up with something relatively easily when the PCs do something unexpected. Say the characters decide to visit a different local then expected. In D&D you may need to plan for the stats of the place, the NPCs (which are a hassle with skills, equipment, feats and such) and potential combat encounters and more. In FATE you can whip up everything you need by concept alone. Much faster.

This is HUGE! Enables a much more open game.

3) Significantly lessened prep time: This is the main reason why I moved to D&D. In order to make a good enough adventure and situation, it would take me many hours as DM to prep- stats for enemies, NPCs, dungeon walls, traps, settlements, DCs for environmental obstacles, treasure by WBL and more... This was highly frustrating, highly draining, and highly time consuming. As real life have serious constraints, this usually meant that I couldn't prepare enough or that we needed to postpone meetings. Most of all though- it really took a toll of me and the other DM.

With Fate preparation is extremely easy, and dircets concepts into mechanics directly, which is an immense time saver. Time demands have come down to about 1/4 of the time, and preparing sessions is actually quite fun.

4) Richness of possibilities: D&D has this to be said for it: The huge amount of data for it (which partly stems from the numerous rules) have given a very rich ground to sprout ideas from, and more importently, a more solid foundation for players to act from for rules oriented players. The FATE mechanics feel a bit similar in most aspect after awhile, and somewhat lacking in complexity, which D&D does provide. This is mostly in combat though, FATe deals with social aspects betterthan D&D (Which lets face it, sucks big time in this department). I'm still learning the system, so still seeing to it.

Hope this helps,
Kol.

Thanks a lot for your post!

I tend to shoot from the hip more often than not (after I've designed a world, I try to just let players run loose and see what interests them), so rules light works to my advantage in that sense, because I can come up with material to fit the needs of any given situation rather quickly.

Matre
2013-09-18, 11:56 PM
Edit: Oh, this was written while I was writing.

That is not necesserily afeature of a rules light system. I haven't played it, but I heard burning wheel has a very complex system, and a heavy emphasis on roleplaying becoming part of mechanincs.

FATE core makes the the concepts, or main issues of the character into the main game mechanics: THese are called Aspects, and then can be used to better a character's chances (when relevant), or complicate her life. Say she has "Sworn enemy of the Empire" as an aspect, then she might get bonuses when she fights the empire, but the empire must also seek her out, hunt her , and target her more specifically, and much more.

The aspects are also used to create adventures, but that's a slightly more difficult matter. Basically, the aspects (be they of the character, NPCs or setting) drive the game more or less, hey get the party into complications, and help them shone when facing them. I really like it since it means that everything practically can become a main issue in the game with relative ease, without needing to be elaborately translated into other game elements, which may not suffice, or may not be adequate. This gives a LOT of freedon in character concept, much more than "Race/ class/ build", and focuses on the narrative concept of the character.

Hope this helps,
Kol.

I responded as you edited xD

Anyways, you mention Fate Core several times, but I know very little about the system. I'm specifically curious about if it has a "tactical" combat system akin to DnDs, and if not, how it handles situations like that?

Also, I realize that having a rules-light game doesn't mean there have to be specific rules for how roleplaying works, I was just curious about what people thought about those sorts of set ups, and if they add much to gameplay, or if people think that they're too limiting or burdensome.

BWR
2013-09-19, 01:13 AM
Medium plus.
MERP got a bit too much for me, but I really do like having mechanical proof of what I'm capable of, rather than just leaving most of it in the hands of the GM.

I like enough rules that I have most situations covered. It's not that I am incapable of making rulings on the fly but I'm always looking for weaknesses in my decisions and worried about being both sensible and consistent - if I rule A now, is this ruling actually a fair for the situation and will I remember that next time?
Having somewhat detailed and strict rules ready means I don't have worry about that and can get on with thinking about plot and IC stuff.

Of course, this depends on the sort of game being run. Some games, especially one-shots, work fine with fewer rules.

Black Jester
2013-09-19, 01:14 AM
I personally think that there is a relatively large middle ground between simple and complex games which I can thoroughly enjoy. Too rule-light games tend to be too superficial for my taste and usually offer too little depth and substance; actually good rule-light systems are also incredibly difficult to design as it seems, as every mechanical element has so much more weight and every stupid one just matters more; the fewer rules you have, the less tolerance for mistakes are there.

Too complex games tend to be slow and not very elegant and usually require more reading, research and general effort to get familiar with the game, and unfortunately that seems to be a chore for some players. And more complex rules can both be slow to play or very nitpicky. In the worst cases, the rules become some sort of means to themselves and create distinctions and divisions which are utterly unnecessary except for the purpose of allowing more rules.

I think the really good games are usually those that clearly steer away from these extremes and find a good middle-ground, because both sides cause specific problems. Now it is not like there aren't some games out there which have both simple system and complex system problems, and all the flaws but few of the strengths, but that doesn't mean that this is the rule.

Kol Korran
2013-09-19, 01:15 AM
Anyways, you mention Fate Core several times, but I know very little about the system. I'm specifically curious about if it has a "tactical" combat system akin to DnDs, and if not, how it handles situations like that?


I'm mentioning Fate since it's the system I just got to play. I only played D&D and Shadowrun other than that, who are both very heavy-rules systems.

The tactical game in Fate is not as complex or rich as D&D, combat is not it's own differentthing,s it is much more like any other challenge in the game, with a few minute differences. It doesn't compare to D&D's depth of tactics, and is more streamlined. I am still trying to find a way to make it more complex. (But I'm VERY new to the system)

Basically each character can make a move and an action. and you have your skill to shoot or do melee or defend and such. However, there are no added inherent modifiers as to situation and such, your skill encompasses everything from training, maneuvers, type of weapons and such. (You can easily add complexity by making Extras- additional rules. The game gives a few examples such as grades of weapons and armor and such, which add a bit). The main thing in combat is using aspects, either the characters aspects, or situational aspects and "creating an advantage"- creating an aspect to fit the theme like "Grappled", "Flanked", "cover fire", "cowering in fear" and more (The rules are very loose- you decide what you want to do, the GM sets a DC, where opposing tests use opposing skills). using aspects usually cost fate points, which are hard to come by, unless you complicate your character's life.

Another important aspect of Fate is that the game mentality is set in a way that failure is quite a reasonable option, which crops up enough. So as Kyuryu said to me- "Combat in Fate is a game of betting highest and chicken". Not exactly tactical, but still with a lot of tension. I'm trying to make it more tactical still.

Grinner
2013-09-19, 06:01 AM
I think the really good games are usually those that clearly steer away from these extremes and find a good middle-ground, because both sides cause specific problems. Now it is not like there aren't some games out there which have both simple system and complex system problems, and all the flaws but few of the strengths, but that doesn't mean that this is the rule.

To add onto this, I'd say a well-designed system is designed with a specific vision of the sort of game that would be played with it and then streamlined to evoke that atmosphere with as little work as possible on the players' part. To put it simply, the crunch should reflect the fluff.

Black Jester
2013-09-19, 06:13 AM
No, not at all. Case in Point; Gurps. It is really hard to find a better, more streamlined designed game (it is complex, yet highly intuitive), but any claims that Gurps follows a particularly narrow vision are, well, wrong.
Similarly, the Unisystem, one of my favourites are likewise flexible and adaptable - and this flexibility and adaptability are great strengths for any game, no matte how complex it is.


If anything, the more focused a game is, the more hidebound and restrictive it becomes. This can work if the more narrow framework offers a good orientation and is supported by contents and relevant mechanisms but it can also be a hindrance when the narrow definition makes it more difficult to leave the box. it is much simpler to take a more open design and establish a few limitations than using a principally limited game and trying to expand it.

Grinner
2013-09-19, 06:38 AM
No, not at all. Case in Point; Gurps. It is really hard to find a better, more streamlined designed game (it is complex, yet highly intuitive), but any claims that Gurps follows a particularly narrow vision are, well, wrong.
Similarly, the Unisystem, one of my favourites are likewise flexible and adaptable - and this flexibility and adaptability are great strengths for any game, no matte how complex it is.

I have to disagree on this point. Yes, they're flexible, but they take a number of steps to do something (damage calculation, in this instance)that other systems can do in just a single step. The net effect is the same (depending on what optional rules you use), but one is more intensive than the other.

That's the price generic systems pay for their flexibility. Since the rules are broken up into a set of discrete steps, they're much easier to tinker with. However, this also means they're a bit slower to put into action (unless you've memorized them rotely).


If anything, the more focused a game is, the more hidebound and restrictive it becomes. This can work if the more narrow framework offers a good orientation and is supported by contents and relevant mechanisms but it can also be a hindrance when the narrow definition makes it more difficult to leave the box. it is much simpler to take a more open design and establish a few limitations than using a principally limited game and trying to expand it.

I had been thinking more genre-specific (pulp, horror, etc.) than concept-specific (WWI dogfighters vs. Lovecraftian horrors).

That's they sell supplements. :smallsmile:

The Rose Dragon
2013-09-19, 06:41 AM
GURPS is my third option for everything (unless it's a superhero or zombie game, then it becomes my second option, since the usual second options move one step up). The main problem GURPS has for me is that it requires so much work if you don't go for a kitchen sink setting (unless the players are very familiar with the setting you are using, and thus can limit their own options appropriately). No other generic system I know of requires the same amount of effort from the GM.

Personally, I prefer complex rules that don't actually slow things down in proper play (things like Storytelling or GURPS, for example, where the rules might take some time to learn, but little to no time to follow once learned). It is not easy to find such games, though, especially in the more narrative kind of games I'm after. Probably why my go-to systems are all rather large collections of generic rules, rather than games with focus on the kind of settings I prefer. Summerland, for example, is a wonderful setting attached to a horrible mess of a light ruleset, so the first thing I did with is adapt it to Mutants & Masterminds (and later, Unisystem).

Jack of Spades
2013-09-19, 07:25 AM
I'm a bit weird. I love games that are very nearly completely free-form, especially indies. However, I also love games that are chock full of well-designed subsystems, even if all I'll ever get to do is read through the rulebooks. It is for exactly that weird reason that my two favorite RPG's of all time are Deadlands and Fiasco, which sit pretty far from one another on the heavy-light scale.

My group tends to get a bit frustrated when they feel shackled by rules systems, though, so we tend to play a lot of indies. Which I am fine with, although the ones that require GM planning tend to require a bit more of it, since most of the time you need to peg down the entire world the game is happening to some degree.

But, to contribute a bit to the discussion that's actually going on, I have this to say. A system can be well-designed and complex and elegant without having a narrow focus, but it will almost always be better served if it does. Deadlands goes out of its way to make the out-of-game mechanics fit with the flavor of the game, and I love it for that. Its newer generic counterpart, Savage Worlds, is one of my most reviled systems because the rules have been stripped of charm and oversimplified to make the game fit any setting.

I guess what I'm saying is this: if I play a complex, well-designed game, I'm going to play it in the world and with the rules it was set up for. I don't need to bother with the whole "Oh, DnD3.X can be any game you want it to be if only you apply houserules A, B, and Q and homebrew X, Y, and L!" If I play DnD, I'm playing pulp fantasy dammit. If I want to play my own weird genre-defying thing, I'll just play a rules-light indie and save myself a heap of work. And if the DnD example is Ikea, GURPS is a trip to the lumber yard to pick up fresh wood.

Mastikator
2013-09-19, 07:29 AM
I don't know what "TTRPG" is, but overall I prefer heavy but fast rules, looking things up in books shouldn't be on par for course. I'm perfectly OK with a DM making things up as he goes along if it makes things go faster, but there ought to be something to fall back on.

Lorsa
2013-09-19, 08:01 AM
I assume TTRPG stands for tabletop roleplaying games.

I usually don't mind rules heavy systems as I see any system more as guidelines than hard rules. It's good that if I can't quite figure out what would happen if someone falls 10 meters to the ground, I can look it up in the book and get an idea. If I don't like what's written there I can just ignore it and go with something else! So rules heavy systems are good as they offer you more guidelines when you're stuck figuring out something yourself.

tasw
2013-09-19, 08:05 AM
I wanted to get peoples' thoughts on rules-heavy or rules-light systems, specifically for the "role-playing" portion of TTRPGs, IE, not combat.

When I say "rules heavy", I mean having rules that target each DC very specifically. DnD, for example, has very specific rules for dealing with how falling works. I think the benefit of this kind of system tends to be how straight-forward it is: in the previous example, if I am in a game and falling, I know exactly how the game intends for me to deal with that situation. I think there's something to be said for having rule books that provide rules, so to speak.

When I say "rules light", I'm talking about games that have general guidelines for determining how difficult tasks should be within the system, so that you can set your own DC's for challenges. I think the benefit of this kind of system is that you aren't forced to consistently look up all of this information whenever anything happens, and you can just wing it with a good general idea of what the result should be.

Thoughts?

i prefer a rules intuitive system. Where its internally consistent and once I understand it i can easily ad hoc anything that comes up to keep the game moving and the pace that I want rolling.

Ive found those more often in rules light systems. But some like dark heresy i also find intuitive and I wouldnt call that rules light. Not super heavy, but not light either.

Games like gurps or rolemaster make me want to pull out my hair, quit and just watch the football game instead. So definitely not heavy.

and i very strongly dislike any game with more complicated rules for actual roleplaying then say white wolf where you can play out the RP and then assign dice bonuses or penalties depending on how it went. I do the same in PF.

DigoDragon
2013-09-19, 08:34 AM
I'm a "Rules Light" kind of GM by the original definitions presented by the OP. I like keeping things fluid and adjustable because my players are pretty predicitable leading up towards a combat, but I have no idea what they're doing when the fight actually breaks out. :smallbiggrin:

By contrast, one of the other members in my group is "Rules Zero". He's the no calorie kind of GM that leaves a funny after taste when you're done rolling the dice because you're not sure if there was a rhyme or reason behind what he just ruled.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-09-19, 09:43 AM
There's some interesting definitions here.

I tend to view rules as light or heavy depending on the complexity of their mechanics. The way I see it, you're more talking about how detailed the rules are.

I don't generally like there to be too many different detailed systems for things; I prefer my rules to flow around a core and then build logically on that core. Burning Wheel is one of my favorite examples thereof: the core is very simple, and all of its subsystems logically extend the core and its implications outwards, adding some crunchy mechanics to work with. The details all link back to the core, though.

WRT Fate Core's tactical combat: it's as tactical as you want it to be. As with any system, the bonuses and penalties to attempt different actions will always vary. Jumping across a chasm to attack somebody is harder than stepping up to attack them; that's just common sense. The GM can easily kick this in by assigning appropriate difficulties to Create Advantage rolls, and even by replacing the enemy's Defend roll with a much higher DC check, if there's a circumstance which would make it hard.

It just requires players to think a bit about the situation, and what the facts of the scene are.

On the topic of roleplaying and rules: I love rules which let players engage the system in a meaningful, character-based way. I think there's a lot that needs to be explored there, and viewing "RP mechanics" through the simple lens of "I do RP, I get a carrot" does them a disservice, I think. I like mechanics to enforce the idea that who a character is can be as important as what skills they have.

valadil
2013-09-19, 10:23 AM
I want to say rules light. But I've probably put more time in D&D3.5 than all other systems combined, so that would be a lie. Honestly, playing with the right group of people is more important than any system, and the groups of people I like favor rules heavy.

Autolykos
2013-09-19, 02:45 PM
I'll probably settle for "medium" here. I do not need every single modifier listed in a table and every action I might take described in a rulebook. I just need a few examples so that I roughly know the order of magnitude those are supposed to be (if dim lighting is a -2 to perception, I can guess that light fog will not be a -10). I also value elegance, abstraction and re-use of mechanics to a certain degree, but I have a soft spot for mechanics that "simulate" the action (like collecting points in multiple rolls for a slow and tedious task vs. succeed or fail in a single roll for quick actions). It helps me get in the right mindset, and it can be used to avoid having clunky (or non-fun*) rules patches that try to get plausible results out of inappropriate mechanics. Basically, I want to get as much (gamist/simulationist) depth as possible out of as few rules as possible. Rules-light systems usually have only one mechanic, and thus almost no tactical variety in the rules. Rules-heavy systems have long, long lists of stuff (I'm looking at you, GURPS...), and/or different mechanics for every single situation (you'll hardly find two D&D spells which have their effects resolved the same way), or at least a few parts of the rules that are so incredibly arcane, complex and confusing that nobody ever bothers using them (hello, Shadowrun!). That said, if I am not allowed to choose the middle ground, I still prefer rules-heavy over rules-light. The "bad examples" above do include two of my favorite systems, after all.
tl;dr: Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.

*Many systems have combat mechanics in which a large part of the rounds end with "nothing happens" at least at some level of play, usually at low levels ("I miss" - "I miss" - "I hit" - "I dodge" - ...). I think this is bad design, because it just wastes time without advancing the game.

Gamgee
2013-09-19, 02:52 PM
We're split equally between the three types. We like them all if the setting and system support each other. Though we have a slight bias to light-medium

Sith_Happens
2013-09-19, 05:47 PM
Just popping in to say then whenever I see "TTRPG" I momentarily assume it stands for "Tengen Toppa role-playing game." It's probably just me.

*throws smoke bomb*

The Rose Dragon
2013-09-19, 05:50 PM
Just popping in to say then whenever I see "TTRPG" I momentarily assume it stands for "Tengen Toppa role-playing game." It's probably just me.

*throws smoke bomb*

Yours is the d4 that will pierce people's feet?

Mordar
2013-09-19, 05:56 PM
I'm a bit weird. I love games that are very nearly completely free-form, especially indies. However, I also love games that are chock full of well-designed subsystems, even if all I'll ever get to do is read through the rulebooks. It is for exactly that weird reason that my two favorite RPG's of all time are Deadlands and Fiasco, which sit pretty far from one another on the heavy-light scale.


We're split equally between the three types. We like them all if the setting and system support each other. Though we have a slight bias to light-medium

I kind of fit in both boats like Jack and Gamgee here... I can and do enjoy the full spectrum of rules-load and roll-load, from Champions to MSH, Rolemaster to Savage Worlds, DnD to...whatever is thought to be on another pole there.

The key for me is to play the game in the system that was built alongside the game (or in the case of systems like Chaosium, the system in which the game was designed to be played). I don't like taking a game, dumping the rule set and "Savaging" it (vernacular used by friends to mean play the game using Savage Worlds rules system because it's fast and furious)...because it might well lose a lot in translation.

For a similar reason I generally do like generic systems or "ports", but that is a more case-by-case issue.

All of that being said, there are certainly groups/individuals with whom I prefer to play "light" system games...but interestingly (to me), I can't say the same thing about the other end of the spectrum. If I like heavy systems with them, it seems I like light systems with them as well.

Hrm...

- M

Jack of Spades
2013-09-19, 07:38 PM
So, this is a little awkward, but I just re-read the OP and realized that what Matre considers "light" I consider "medium" and what they consider "heavy" I tend to see as "medium-to-heavy."

I tend to see a "light" RPG as one that has little to no dice-rolling at all, or at least none with specific effects (Mythender is a good example of such toothless dice-throwing). Most indie RPGs tend toward this, and have a general bias toward collaborative storytelling.

To my mind a "heavy" RPG is something like Burning Wheel or GURPS (depending on how you GURPS), in which there are systems upon systems and a bounty of numbers-games. The kind of games where there are multitudes of DC tables so that the mechanical hardness of the game can tune itself just right. Older RPGs (or, at least the ones we tend to remember) were often obsessed with being the heaviest game in the room.

Neither is better than the other, and I love both pretty equally. I do tend to get tired of RPGs that sit near the middle, though, as they start to just feel like board games to me (just about any DnD gets this way).

Jay R
2013-09-19, 11:48 PM
I don't particularly care; I just want the heaviness and complexity of the rules to not make a difference at the table.

Many people don't like Hero Systems. I have no problem with it, because it doesn't slow us down at the table. It takes a little longer to build a character, (for which I get near-infinite options), but all the calculations are done away from the table, and the game runs smoothly and quickly.

Tengu_temp
2013-09-20, 12:26 AM
There's some interesting definitions here.

I tend to view rules as light or heavy depending on the complexity of their mechanics. The way I see it, you're more talking about how detailed the rules are.

Yeah. "Rules heavy" doesn't mean "has difficulties set for everything". It means "there's a lot of specific rules rather than few general ones and lots of winging it".

I don't really care if a game is particularily rules-light or rules-heavy, but I want it to give me three things:
1. Fast gameplay.
2. Lots of options in combat.
3. Freedom during character creation.
Both Fate and Mutants and Masterminds qualify for those, and they're from the complete opposite sides of the rules light/heavy spectrum.

Raum
2013-09-22, 08:56 AM
Thoughts?I prefer light to moderate complexity games. I don't classify them based on DC though - so our definitions may differ.


Kind of a tweak on the OP then: how do you feel about systems that have fairly light rules for things like how successful actions are determined (IE, no defined DC's), but have more defined parameters for how role playing is supposed to be played out? I'm not a big fan. I've played Torchbearer, Mouse Guard, and other games which limit player choices. With all of them I ran into the "I don't want to do x, y, or z - I want to try A" issue. They simply felt too limiting when choices which made sense in the story's context weren't available due to the rules.


Anyways, you mention Fate Core several times, but I know very little about the system. I'm specifically curious about if it has a "tactical" combat system akin to DnDs, and if not, how it handles situations like that?You can manipulate the narrative to make it sound tactical but "charging wildly" nets you the same mechanical bonus as "ducking behind cover" or any other action. The exception is 'group fiat' - you can use those to manipulate the narrative instead of gaining a bonus.

I wanted to like Fate but it invests everything in making the narrative interesting and fails to make the mechanics tactical at all. Probably doesn't help that DFRPG was my introduction to it either.

My favorite games (so far! :smallbiggrin:) have been those with intuitive mechanics flexible enough to cover broad situations / concepts and rules making tactical play interesting. In other words, the AD&Ds (pre-Skills & Powers nonsense), the Savage Worlds, and the Unisystems. I've also enjoyed a lot of lighter games such as Over the Edge / WaRP and Wushu but can't use them for more than a few sessions.

jedipotter
2013-09-22, 10:31 AM
It depends on the players as to what I prefer rules wise.

If I have good players, who don't optimize or worse and are not roll playing the game, then I love rules heavy so everyone knows how things work. As long as there are no crazy players, I like rules heavy.

But if I have other players, who optimize or worse and roll play, then I want rules light.

Nero24200
2013-09-22, 04:52 PM
It depends on the rules. I like 3.5, but I feel it needs the horde of rules and books to be any good. If the base mechanics of a rule-set is good though then I feel it can get away with having a lot less.

Lorsa
2013-09-22, 05:10 PM
Yeah. "Rules heavy" doesn't mean "has difficulties set for everything". It means "there's a lot of specific rules rather than few general ones and lots of winging it".

I don't really care if a game is particularily rules-light or rules-heavy, but I want it to give me three things:
1. Fast gameplay.
2. Lots of options in combat.
3. Freedom during character creation.
Both Fate and Mutants and Masterminds qualify for those, and they're from the complete opposite sides of the rules light/heavy spectrum.

The Original Poster clearly stated what he meant with rules heavy & light, so that's the definition we have to go with for the purpose of this thread.

Remmirath
2013-09-22, 07:06 PM
While for combat I am very much in favour of rules heavy games, I lean more towards rules light for the non-combat and roleplaying aspects of things.

I do like there to be many skills, and I like it to be fairly well-documented how to use those various skills and how difficult various things are for them. However, skills such as Diplomacy or Bluff I prefer to only serve as some manner of modifier to the roleplaying of the player, so to speak. I strongly disliked it when all PC/NPC interactions take the form of dice tossing, and I want that to be almost entirely talking. Diplomacy should be how well the character said what they said, not what they said. That sort of thing.

Essentially I want detailed rules for combat, for non-roleplaying skills, and for most other things. I want little to no rules for the actual roleplaying, and I'll likely houserule away or ignore most of them if they are there (assuming I'm the DM. I'll just be somewhat unsatisfied if I'm playing under those circumstances).

molten_dragon
2013-09-22, 07:41 PM
I wanted to get peoples' thoughts on rules-heavy or rules-light systems, specifically for the "role-playing" portion of TTRPGs, IE, not combat.

When I say "rules heavy", I mean having rules that target each DC very specifically. DnD, for example, has very specific rules for dealing with how falling works. I think the benefit of this kind of system tends to be how straight-forward it is: in the previous example, if I am in a game and falling, I know exactly how the game intends for me to deal with that situation. I think there's something to be said for having rule books that provide rules, so to speak.

When I say "rules light", I'm talking about games that have general guidelines for determining how difficult tasks should be within the system, so that you can set your own DC's for challenges. I think the benefit of this kind of system is that you aren't forced to consistently look up all of this information whenever anything happens, and you can just wing it with a good general idea of what the result should be.

Thoughts?

I enjoy both actually. I've played more rules-heavy RPGs (D&D, Shadowrun, Exalted), but I've played a couple of rules-light games too and really enjoyed them. I'm finally getting to try out the Dresden Files RPG, which is pretty rules-light, and I'm having a blast.