Benefits Over Rules Light Games

[Milo v3]

D&D Next is a much lighter ruleset than some of the previous editions, and this seems to be it's primary draw of the edition, but I'm not sure I understand why this is such a draw when there are full-rules light systems already that can cover the fantasy games.

But, considering the number of people liking it there must be some benefit it has over rules-light games that I'm just not seeing at first glance.

[themaque]

D&D Next is a much lighter ruleset than some of the previous editions, and this seems to be it's primary draw of the edition, but I'm not sure I understand why this is such a draw when there are full-rules light systems already that can cover the fantasy games.

But, considering the number of people liking it there must be some benefit it has over rules-light games that I'm just not seeing at first glance.

Sort of a happy medium? Completely rules light games can sometimes feel rules free.

A rules light game is just a pile of clay. ANYTHING can be made of it. Good, bad, who knows?

This game feels more like a skeleton. You have a sturdy support network in play but plenty of free space to put the "Muscles" from GM interpretation.

Rules heavy game is a complete body, it's just missing the brain. Some parts can be swapped out, but you have a good idea of what everything is from the start.

That's how I personally see it at any rate. Make sense?

[Gwendol]

Adaptability, to settings, the players, the DM, etc. And yet something familiar to hold it all together, making it relatively easy to move from different games/tables and not be completely lost.

[Mr.Moron]

Medium Salsa is a less spicy dip than some of the other salsas out there, and this seems to be it's primary draw of the medium salsa, but I'm not sure I understand why this is such a draw when there are mild salsas out there that can already be used as dips.

But, considering the number of people liking it there must be some benefit it has over mild salsa that I'm just not seeing at first glance.

[Finieous]

D&D Next is a much lighter ruleset than some of the previous editions, and this seems to be it's primary draw of the edition, but I'm not sure I understand why this is such a draw when there are full-rules light systems already that can cover the fantasy games.


Maybe "rules loose" (as in "not rigid") more than "rules light." There's still a lot of rules there. Anyway, it's D&D and there's enough there that it feels like D&D. I imagine that's why it's a "draw" in a way that generic rules-light fantasy games aren't.

[Stan]

5e isn't rules light. It's just takes a step back from 3e/Pathfinder which had started getting into the realm of gurps and hero.

5e is a good system overall but part of the appeal is the name. Try putting together a new group saying "let's try the new version of D&D." vs. "Let's try this game only a few thousand people have heard of."

[eastmabl]

Rules Heavy

What rules-heavy systems provide a player is certainty - if I do X, then Y should logically follow. These rules provide the player with objective expectations for how the world will act which are not subject to the whims of the DM. (For example, in 3.5 I know that if I make a tumble check DC 15 moving at half speed, I must avoid AoOs. If I cast fireball as a 5th level wizard, the range must be up to X ft and each target must suffer 5d6 damage).

What you gain in certainty, you lose in malleability - the villain cannot survive to give his speech shortly before dying because I stabbed him in the stomach for 10d6 sneak attack damage. When certain things must follow

You also lose the ability to learn and master the game quickly. If you have a three core books and 50 splat books of rules, it's going to take a lot of time and reading to master the rules. Personally, I don't have the time to learn a system like 3.5 like I did when it was first released - I have a job and a family, instead of school and a roleplaying habit.

Rules Light

What rule-light systems do is to make the game very malleable - many game mechanics are placed within the discretion of the DM. With fewer rules to bind the DM, more emphasis is placed on the DM's good judgment and subject to whatever might fit the narrative. Additionally, with fewer mechanics, it's easier to learn and master the rules.

This malleability comes at the cost of certainty. Now, instead of knowing the result of a success or a failure, it's up to the DM to tell you how you succeed or fail. While there are some DMs whose judgment and fairness I would trust to the end of the fantasy earth, there are others (myself included, sometimes) who I would trust as far as I could throw. These rules-light systems are often as only good as their DMs because of this.

Rules-Loose

What rules-medium or rules-loose systems provide is a combination of the two. I get a decent corpus of rules to work with which provides me some certainty as to how the rules work. I don't have a stack of books that I need to review before generating a character or DMing a session.

Additionally, a rules-loose system explicitly empowers the DM to utilize different rules when he doesn't like them. Personally, I bring any alternate rule / house rule before my players before I implement it, but I don't necessarily have to.

[themaque]

Rules Heavy


Rules Light


Rules-Loose


This and my necromantic monster mash example. ;-)

[Galen]

It's not rules-light, it's rules-just-enough.

[ProphetSword]

D&D Next is a much lighter ruleset than some of the previous editions, and this seems to be it's primary draw of the edition, but I'm not sure I understand why this is such a draw when there are full-rules light systems already that can cover the fantasy games.

But, considering the number of people liking it there must be some benefit it has over rules-light games that I'm just not seeing at first glance.


It's Dungeons & Dragons. And it's good.

[TheOOB]

First and foremost, D&D 5e is by no means a rules light system, it's still, for lack of a better term, very "crunchy"(as opposed to "fluffy" systems).

There are advantages to a dense or an airy game system, and disadvantages too. Important to note is that roleplay has noting to do with it. The density of rules has no effect on roleplay pretty much at all. You can have great roleplay in a very dense system, and there can be terrible roleplay in more fluffy systems.

In my experience, rules heavy systems are a bit harder to get into, but their primary advantage is that they tend to a)encourage longer campaigns, and b)increase the players power and influence over the game. When players have special abilities that do specific things, and there is an understanding of how specific actions work, players can do things that the GM cannot(or should not) stop. This can create a situation where the players are as much of control over the story as the DM. Further, strong mechanics and advancement systems tend to encourage groups to stick with the same characters for a long time rather than stop and make new characters and tell more stories.

More fluffly systems give the DM more power to create the story they want, as the players have less tools with which to screw with the story. Further, once a story is told, there is less reason to continue with the same characters if a better story can be told with new ones.

D&D Next has lightened the rules(a little), to help empower the DM and make things a bit easier to arbitrate. Players still however have long lists of stats, skill, abilities, spells, and equipment with which to impact the game, and D&D encourages really long campaigns, so it's not lightweight and fluffy by any means.

[Forum Explorer]

First and foremost, D&D 5e is by no means a rules light system, it's still, for lack of a better term, very "crunchy"(as opposed to "fluffy" systems).

There are advantages to a dense or an airy game system, and disadvantages too. Important to note is that roleplay has noting to do with it. The density of rules has no effect on roleplay pretty much at all. You can have great roleplay in a very dense system, and there can be terrible roleplay in more fluffy systems.

In my experience, rules heavy systems are a bit harder to get into, but their primary advantage is that they tend to a)encourage longer campaigns, and b)increase the players power and influence over the game. When players have special abilities that do specific things, and there is an understanding of how specific actions work, players can do things that the GM cannot(or should not) stop. This can create a situation where the players are as much of control over the story as the DM. Further, strong mechanics and advancement systems tend to encourage groups to stick with the same characters for a long time rather than stop and make new characters and tell more stories.

More fluffly systems give the DM more power to create the story they want, as the players have less tools with which to screw with the story. Further, once a story is told, there is less reason to continue with the same characters if a better story can be told with new ones.

D&D Next has lightened the rules(a little), to help empower the DM and make things a bit easier to arbitrate. Players still however have long lists of stats, skill, abilities, spells, and equipment with which to impact the game, and D&D encourages really long campaigns, so it's not lightweight and fluffy by any means.

I disagree with that so much. I've found the opposite to be true, where with less rules the players have more power, because they just declare something happening without having to jump through a bunch of hoops to activate the specific scenario allowed in a rules heavy game.

[Gwendol]

I can see there are two sides of the coin. Having discrete powers (such as spells) may increase player influence. However, having detailed rules even for mundane tasks with even the smallest modifiers codified and listed risk leading to a situation where if an action is not there it can't be done.

The important thing about 5e is that it has been designed to be flexible and fast. The advantage/disadvantage mechanics is simple enough and extremly general in application so as to cover nearly every conceivable situation the player may end up in. This is the appeal of the system.

[TheOOB]

While it is true is rules light games players can just say things, the GM can just say no.

In a rules light game, if the players are trying to convince an NPC to join their side, and that would screw up your plans, you can just say no. In D&D, if a player casts Dominate Person, and the target fails their save, there's not a lot you can do about that. The players abilities just work.

[Galen]

While it is true is rules light games players can just say things, the GM can just say no.

In a rules light game, if the players are trying to convince an NPC to join their side, and that would screw up your plans, you can just say no. In D&D, if a player casts Dominate Person, and the target fails their save, there's not a lot you can do about that. The players abilities just work.
There are still things you can do.
- You can have a random passerby notice a person acting Dominated and complain to the Magic Control Authority.
- You can have the dominated person screw up something horribly in a social challenge
- You can have an Anti-magic field trap suddenly suppress the Domination in the worst moment possible.

It just requires a bit creativity. But, yeah, you can't just lazily say "no". Sometimes you have to say yes and be creative about it.

[georgie_leech]

While it is true is rules light games players can just say things, the GM can just say no.

In a rules light game, if the players are trying to convince an NPC to join their side, and that would screw up your plans, you can just say no. In D&D, if a player casts Dominate Person, and the target fails their save, there's not a lot you can do about that. The players abilities just work.

At the same time, it can be harder to go "I throw sand in his eyes in an attempt to blind him!" when you need Improved Sand Tossing to do so.

[Gwendol]

At the same time, it can be harder to go "I throw sand in his eyes in an attempt to blind him!" when you need Improved Sand Tossing to do so.

Exactly. One of the issues with 3.5 was that for soooo many of the things a martial could do (grapple, overrun, TWF, disarm, Bull rush, sunder, etc) a feat or more was needed to pull it off. And then you were still limited to the action described by the feat. Not so in 5e when actions are non-scripted, and without much pre-reqs.

[Slipperychicken]

It's Dungeons & Dragons. And it's good.

This. It's rules-lite, but more importantly, it's D&D and therefore not as intimidating for players who cut their teeth on 2e/3.X and refuse to learn anything that isn't D&D.


In business, we refer to this as "switching costs". A non-D&D system might well be superior to 5e, but finding, learning, and switching to a non-D&D system requires more resources (financial, cognitive, temporal, etc) than going to 5e does. There may also be concerns related to official WotC fluff, campaign settings, easily transferring characters, and so on.

For an easy analogy, consider a Windows-user who notices that his current OS is almost obsolete, and is faced with the choice to either upgrade to the next iteration of Windows (which he knows will most likely suck), or instead switch a different operating system (i.e. Apple, Linux, etc. Which might be better than Windows). Even if the decision-maker was rational, his evaluation of the alternatives would need to take into account what tasks are involved with switching. If he switches, then many of his favorite tricks, settings, and techniques would need to be re-learned for use with the new system, or else might be Windows-specific and forever lost to him if he switched. Would his existing files and settings still work with the new OS? How long would it take to set everything back up again? Would he hate using a different interface? All those concerns can (and often do) help lead users to stay with systems and products that are familiar to them, even if those systems and products are inferior in important ways. It isn't necessarily a bad thing to be influenced by it, since switching costs can absolutely make the difference between a worthwhile change and one which is too much hassle for too little benefit.

In addition, there are brand-related advantages which D&D still wields. It's by far the most well-known and widely-recognized tabletop RPG brand out there, to the extent that many people outside the hobby (and some who want to join the hobby) still think it's the only game of its kind.

[themaque]

While it is true is rules light games players can just say things, the GM can just say no.

In a rules light game, if the players are trying to convince an NPC to join their side, and that would screw up your plans, you can just say no. In D&D, if a player casts Dominate Person, and the target fails their save, there's not a lot you can do about that. The players abilities just work.

and to be fair, as GM sometimes you have to keep your plans fluid, because the players will always, Always, ALWAYS find a way to screw them up you never expected.

Player: I Do X
GM: Are you SURE you want to do that?
Player: what? uhm.. yeah, of course I'm sure.
GM: ALLRIGHT.. your plan.
Inside GM's head: Crap Crap Crap Crap

Sometimes it's nice for the player to have a clear cut idea as to what he can do at almost all times. It all depends on personal tastes and play style.

Personally I think 5e strikes a nice middle ground. I will still play rules light games, and I will still play rules heavy games for the particular itch both play style scratch.

[Mara]

Now my books are coming Tuesday, when I read the basic rules it seemed to me that the philosophy in 5e was to only add rules that added to the game even if that sacrificed some simulation.

For example, attacking an invisible enemy is at a disadvantage instead of a 50% miss chance (or even having miss chance as a mechanic). The miss chance better simulates what is happening. The disadvantage roll is more abstract, but a simpler, more unified, game mechanic.

Another example is how attacking a prone enemy is an advantage (for melee) not -4 to AC against melee attacks.

Another example is how the +2 flanking bonus of 3.5/PF is just not a thing (thus making gridless games far more practical). I also really enjoy the 5e cover rules (Are you x% covered? not Are you x% covered? Do Vectors from your square corners to target's square corners intersect with various obstacles? Range is different, reach melee is like range, ect, ect, ect)

Also the grapple rules do not have anything about pinning an opponent, but I don't need the PF grapple flow chart (http://www.aurumvorax.com/images/grapple1.png) to adjudicate a grapple.

I think there is a trade-off. My problem now-a-days is that I need to recruit people to the hobby who are grown adults with jobs and spouses. People who may not have the patience to learn the endless rules that come easier for those of us who have spent years in the hobby (although not easy enough to not need the linked flowchart).

[TheOOB]

It's been awhile since I've recommended this, but all GM's should read Robin's Laws of Good Gamemastering (http://www.sjgames.com/robinslaws/). Not only does it have good advice, it has a great section on choosing the right RPG system, and how to base your decision based on your players.