Rules-lite fantasy system?

[whisperwind1]

Hey guys,

I want to DM high fantasy games, but i find that D&D and its family of games to be a little to rules-obsessive for my tastes. Sometimes i want to add an effect or thing for mystique, without worrying about mechanical counters or condiderations. Can anyone recommend a high fantasy system like D&D, but that allows for a certain narrativist (not so rule-conscious) playstyle?

[Morty]

Dungeon World is an obvious choice. It aims to create a similar play style as D&D does, but it's very rules-light and fiction-first.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Dungeon World is probably the way to go, yes.

[mabriss lethe]

Microlite d20 is also good.

outside of d20, I'd probably go for Fate Accelerated.

[whisperwind1]

What's Dungeon World, how does it work?

[whisperwind1]

Microlite d20 is also good.

outside of d20, I'd probably go for Fate Accelerated.

I've heard of Microlite d20, but i dont know much about it.

As for FATE Accelerated, how does it differ from the core game?

[Anonymouswizard]

Off the top of my head Dungeon World, Tunnels and Trolls, and Fate Accelerated (FAE) would all work, although FAE is generic rather than specifically fantasy.

[whisperwind1]

Off the top of my head Dungeon World, Tunnels and Trolls, and Fate Accelerated (FAE) would all work, although FAE is generic rather than specifically fantasy.

But FATE has the aspect thing right? I dont much like that characters can be "statted" in just a couple of lines that give bonuses.

[Anonymouswizard]

But FATE has the aspect thing right? I dont much like that characters can be "statted" in just a couple of lines that give bonuses.

Yeah, I personally like that. Although remember that Aspects only gives bonuses (or rerolls) when a Fate Point is spent, otherwise they only act as permissions (you can do something if an Aspect says you can do it). It's not for everyone, but it makes for an easier experience than working out what the rules let me do.

[Remedy]

As for FATE Accelerated, how does it differ from the core game?

FAE is, in my opinion, a very elegant system, but it's also a pretty simple one. Characters are broken into three parts - Aspects, Approaches, and Stunts. Aspects and Approaches work together to take a narrative-focused replacement of skills in other games. Aspects are basically traits of your character's background and current status/abilities/equipment that give you an idea of what your character can do, while Stunts represent specializations or temporarily helpful bonuses such as specific contacts.

A character with the Aspect "Knight Vassal of the King" will be able to, for example, ride a horse, wield a lance, understand high-class etiquette and politics, and take advantage of his social status in circumstances where being a royal knight would give him an "in."

Meanwhile, Approaches represent how your character goes about things. There's Careful, Clever, Flashy, Forceful, Quick, and Sneaky. These get a bonus from +0 to +3, at least for starting characters. Your character's Aspects dictate what you can do, the Approach dictates how you do it best. Obviously, you have to be able to justify your Approach for how you want to do something. A character might Cleverly fix a machine to perfection with time, or Quickly cludge it back into at least workable usage when time is of the essence, but it makes no sense to try and Carefully smash an orc's brains out with a hammer.

Lastly, Stunts are basically either specializations or special traits representing your character's unique abilities, either providing consistent bonuses or a special once-per-session benefit. Maybe the aforementioned knight has a "Kite Shield" stunt, giving him a constant +2 to defense against physical attacks. Or maybe the dragon he's fighting, while capable of releasing small single-target streams of flame consistently, has a Stunt allowing her to occasionally up the ante to a huge gout of fire, allowing her to attack all enemies with one attack during desperate situations. Or maybe a detective has a Stunt to represent a particular specialist in some scientific field that he's friends with, so if he needs to find out the chemical composition of this or that for a case, no problem, he already knows a guy.

The flow of combat is largely based around gaining and utilizing Advantages. I'm pretty sure that works similarly to how it goes in Fate Core, though, so I won't go into it here.

[whisperwind1]

See i feel like encompassing a character in just a few phrases is TOO simple. Not to mention it might cause more creative players to do better than less creative ones.

I would like at least a modest amount of crunch, to represent charafters, but without sparking arguments over who can do what.

[Anonymouswizard]

See i feel like encompassing a character in just a few phrases is TOO simple. Not to mention it might cause more creative players to do better than less creative ones.

I would like at least a modest amount of crunch, to represent charafters, but without sparking arguments over who can do what.

Aspects aren't all of a character though, and they only give a mechanical boost when a Fate Point is spent on them (bar Aspects Only Fate, which is a cool idea but for me falls flat on it's face). In most Fate games characters are made up of four parts:
-Aspects (the short descriptive phrases)
-Skills/Approaches (your mechanical core, what are you good at, these range from Mediocre (+0) up to Legendary (+8) and theoretically beyond, but the starting cap is Great (+4) in Core and Good (+3) in FAE).
-Stunts (special tricks, less versatile than Aspects but generally don't require a Fate Point to activate. They can give a bonus or bend the rules).
-Extras (anything else, normally something that lets you break the rules a bit or adds a special skill or set of stunts).

Have you ever actually looked at Fate? Fate Core is definitely rules-heavy, while FAE is rules-lite (mainly due to not having all the optional and 'this is how this works' stuff Core put into it's page count).

[Vrock_Summoner]

Well, I'll put my vote in Dungeon World as well, but in addition, I'd like to recommend a "medium-crunch" system (labeled as such under the assumption that Fate Core counts as low-crunch, and GURPS or D&D 3.5 counts as heavy-crunch). Namely, Fantasy d6.

Fantasy d6 has solid but simple character creation guidelines that leave very little ambiguity as to what a character can do or how well he can do it. The complexity comes in the Effect Creation system, or more colloquially the magic system, which gives you very thorough point-based guidelines for creating a wide variety of effects, with activation conditions, timing, and drawbacks factored in. It takes more time and effort than, say, selecting a bunch of pre-built spells for a wizard or slapping Supernatural Abilities on a monster template in D&D, but it comes with a way higher level of customizability and still falls well short of the book work of a crunch-heavy magic system like Ars Magica.

I don't like it myself - anything I would use it for, Ars Magica does better, largely because it's got so much more crunchy depth - but it seems like it might be right up your alley.

[Stan]

I'm sure there are more that I'm forgetting but here are a few. If the rules are simple enough, you can add whatever bits and bonuses as needed without breaking the system - plus you have time as there's less overhead.

Broadsword fits the character sheet and rules on one page. You have have abilities, then skills add a bit to the base ability score. Search for 1PG and you can find probably variants for other genres.
http://www.rpgnow.com/product/27887/Broadsword?it=1

You can go old school and try Basic D&D or an OGL clone of it such as Labyrinth Lord or Basic Fantasy.

Dungeon Squad is very simple - you allocate dice to a few abilities and equipment. - It and the several variants are free.
http://www.1km1kt.net/rpg/dungeon-squad

There's Old School Hack and Red Box Hack. Both are simple yet have room for tactics. I like the former (and it won an Ennie for best free game), but the latter has some story telling elements. You can find them both free at http://www.oldschoolhack.net/

FAE is also a good choice - there's a free version to check out. Same with the D6 system.

[Friv]

So, since FAE was covered, Dungeon World.

Dungeon World is a player-facing system (meaning the GM almost never rolls dice) that's designed to emulate D&D in a more narrative style.

The game has a set of "Moves", some of which are common to everyone ("Hack and Slash", "Spout Lore"), and some of which are specific to classes ("Trap Sense", "Cast a Spell"). Each class gets a few Moves for free, and one more each time you level up. When you want to do something, the GM decides what Move that sounds like and has you roll it.

All rolls are 2d6+ (Stat Bonus), with stat bonus ranging from -1 to +3. If you roll a 6 or less, something bad happens; the GM gets to make a Move of their own, hurt you, swallow resources, whatever seems appropriate for failing here and is also interesting. If you roll a 7-9, you succeed, but there's a cost that mitigates the victory or requires a new roll to evade. If you roll a 10+, your move is totally successful. Really difficult tasks are generally modeled by requiring two or three rolls to succeed at, rather than making any given step harder.

Example: If your character gets into melee with an enemy, the GM may call for a Hack and Slash. You roll 2d6+Str. On a 10+, your character deals a d10 damage to his opponent. He can choose to deal more damage, but that opens him up and he takes damage in return. On a 7-9, he deals his normal damage, and takes damage from the opponent. On a 6 or less, he doesn't deal damage, and the opponent damages him or else manages to trip him up, isolate him, or get past him to attack someone else.

Another Example: Rangers have a move called Hunt and Track. When following clues left behind by a creature or group, they roll 2d6+Wis. On a 10+, they can follow someone's trail until there's a significant change in direction or mode of travel, and can choose to either gain a useful bit of information about the target, or learn exactly why the trail ends. On a 7-9, they can follow the trail, but don't get the extra information. On a 6-, they lose the trail, and might stumble into a dangerous situation or lose critical time needed to reach a goal.

A high-level ranger could take the Move "Observant" when levelling up, at which point they can get extra information about any creature that they track, even if the tracking attempt itself fails.

[Grod_The_Giant]

See i feel like encompassing a character in just a few phrases is TOO simple. Not to mention it might cause more creative players to do better than less creative ones.

I would like at least a modest amount of crunch, to represent charafters, but without sparking arguments over who can do what.
I'd certainly think about Fate Core (or maybe the old Dresden Files RPG, which has decent rules for magic and supernatural powers) in place of Accelerated-- it uses a fairly conventional skill system instead of mucking around with "Approaches," so your Aspects wind up being used more for occasional bonuses/penalties than permissions. But it's still much more narrativist than many games out there, which certainly isn't everyone's cup of tea. I'm certainly not the biggest fan...

If you want "rules medium," maybe Mutants and Masterminds 3e? Written for superheroes but certainly serviceable for epic fantasy, it's got the single most elegant power creation system I've ever seen in an RPG. You can make just about any ability you can think of from a relatively small list of effects and modifiers, instead of having to memorize hundreds of individual options. And as a GM you're encouraged not to count points, so you can essentially just ignore it and just scribble down the key numbers for when your players encounter it. It takes a bit to get the hang of character creation, but once you have your guys the game plays nice and quickly.

I've never had much of a chance to play, but I have some friends who are big on Savage Worlds, which seems reasonably quick and flexible. I've also got a homebrew system that might be what you want-- rules light without being ill-defined or narrativist. Characters have ten stats, players make every roll, and every check is "roll under your stat, possibly rolling an extra time if circumstances check out," with some adjustment for what your relative power level is. Powers are user-defined, and priced based on their variability. NPCs are just lists of powers and ways they modify PC checks against them. I can send you a PDF if you're interested; I promise it's well-tested and functional.

[ComradeBear]

I'd certainly think about Fate Core (or maybe the old Dresden Files RPG, which has decent rules for magic and supernatural powers) in place of Accelerated-- it uses a fairly conventional skill system instead of mucking around with "Approaches," so your Aspects wind up being used more for occasional bonuses/penalties than permissions. But it's still much more narrativist than many games out there, which certainly isn't everyone's cup of tea. I'm certainly not the biggest fan...

If you want "rules medium," maybe Mutants and Masterminds 3e? Written for superheroes but certainly serviceable for epic fantasy, it's got the single most elegant power creation system I've ever seen in an RPG. You can make just about any ability you can think of from a relatively small list of effects and modifiers, instead of having to memorize hundreds of individual options. And as a GM you're encouraged not to count points, so you can essentially just ignore it and just scribble down the key numbers for when your players encounter it. It takes a bit to get the hang of character creation, but once you have your guys the game plays nice and quickly.

I've never had much of a chance to play, but I have some friends who are big on Savage Worlds, which seems reasonably quick and flexible. I've also got a homebrew system that might be what you want-- rules light without being ill-defined or narrativist. Characters have ten stats, players make every roll, and every check is "roll under your stat, possibly rolling an extra time if circumstances check out," with some adjustment for what your relative power level is. Powers are user-defined, and priced based on their variability. NPCs are just lists of powers and ways they modify PC checks against them. I can send you a PDF if you're interested; I promise it's well-tested and functional.

I would not by any means refer to M&M as anything but rules-heavy. >.> It is literally a laundry list of rules for how to build superpowers by combining rules and subrules together.

I'll go ahead and also vouch for Dungeon World. If what you want is basically to get to the end and have something like an HBO Fantasy tv series, then Dungeon World is the way to go.

[Anonymouswizard]

I would not by any means refer to M&M as anything but rules-heavy. >.> It is literally a laundry list of rules for how to build superpowers by combining rules and subrules together.

I'm agreeing here, especially as you can fit an RPG on 2 sides of A4 (although I recommend at least 4, probably 10+). Not that it's bad, I enjoy making powers with M&M, but it's really complex when you get down to it (I've previously broken a game by using arrays when the GM didn't realise they were there, although I'm about to start a game of it with a competent GM).

It has weird things where you effectively have to buy up your defences, but don't. Immunities, Regeneration, and a couple other things can let you get away with skimping on defences, but otherwise you want PL limits (and generally you still want them even with defensive powers such as Regeneration).


I'll go ahead and also vouch for Dungeon World. If what you want is basically to get to the end and have something like an HBO Fantasy tv series, then Dungeon World is the way to go.

I will just point out that Fate will also let you do this, but in a different way as it focuses on modelling narratives. Fate actually has some interesting fantasy settings, although the lean towards pulp as that's what the system is best at.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I would not by any means refer to M&M as anything but rules-heavy. >.> It is literally a laundry list of rules for how to build superpowers by combining rules and subrules together.

I'll go ahead and also vouch for Dungeon World. If what you want is basically to get to the end and have something like an HBO Fantasy tv series, then Dungeon World is the way to go.
I call it "rules medium" because it's crunchy, but not finicky or memorization-heavy in the same way that, say, 3.5 D&D is. You can build straightforward characters quite easily, as the rules for each effect (and there aren't that many, and a good portion of them are situational) include all the modifiers you'd expect to need. Besides, it sounds like whisperwind1's complaint is about rigidity, rather than complexity-- they mentioned disliking how vague FAE characters are, for instance-- and M&M is all about flexibility-without-being-vague.

As for Dungeon World, unless it's been significantly tweaked from the version of Apocalypse World I played (which doesn't seem likely, based on Friv's summary), it has a major tone difference from traditional RPGs: the expectation is failure, and plot progression by "failing forward." You will screw up fairly consistently, with nasty, nasty consequences throughout. Which can be fun, but it's a drastic departure from many other games.

[mabriss lethe]

I call it "rules medium" because it's crunchy, but not finicky or memorization-heavy in the same way that, say, 3.5 D&D is. You can build straightforward characters quite easily, as the rules for each effect (and there aren't that many, and a good portion of them are situational) include all the modifiers you'd expect to need. Besides, it sounds like whisperwind1's complaint is about rigidity, rather than complexity-- they mentioned disliking how vague FAE characters are, for instance-- and M&M is all about flexibility-without-being-vague.

As for Dungeon World, unless it's been significantly tweaked from the version of Apocalypse World I played (which doesn't seem likely, based on Friv's summary), it has a major tone difference from traditional RPGs: the expectation is failure, and plot progression by "failing forward." You will screw up fairly consistently, with nasty, nasty consequences throughout. Which can be fun, but it's a drastic departure from many other games.

I'd say M&M averages out to "rules medium." Character creation is somewhat rules heavy, being rather fiddly and time consuming, but actually playing the game is far more on the "light" side of the spectrum.

[whisperwind1]

How about systems that are more generic like the Chaosium one? I've also played Savage Worlds and loved it, but some of my players did not lol. But I want to come back to Dungeon World, and the idea that the expectation is to fail. That's kind of a problem for heroic fantasy isn't it?

[JAL_1138]

Sadly one of the more amusing rules-light systems I've seen, "Here's Some F$&%ing D&D: Minimalist Roleplaying and Sh#%" is incomplete, as it has no rules for monsters. It did pare a PHB including spells and spell descriptions down to two pages, but without a bestiary, I can't recommend it. :smallfrown:

[Friv]

As for Dungeon World, unless it's been significantly tweaked from the version of Apocalypse World I played (which doesn't seem likely, based on Friv's summary), it has a major tone difference from traditional RPGs: the expectation is failure, and plot progression by "failing forward." You will screw up fairly consistently, with nasty, nasty consequences throughout. Which can be fun, but it's a drastic departure from many other games.

IIRC, and I haven't played much AW so I could be wrong, Dungeon World tends to have much less punishing 7-9 results than Apocalypse World. The result is that while you're still getting a lot of mixed successes, they feel a bit more like successes and less like "not quite close enough".

As for your chances - you've got six stats, which start at +2, +1, +1, +0, +0, -1. Gaining levels gradually boosts those numbers.
Your +2 stat gives a 41% chance of full success, a 42% chance of partial success, and only a 17% chance of failure.
Your +1 stats give a 28% chance of full success, a 44% chance of partial success, and a 28% chance of failure.
Your +0 stats give only a 17% chance of full success, a 42% chance of partial success, and a 41% chance of failure.
Finally, your -1 stat gives an 8% chance of full success, a 33% chance of partial success, and a 59% chance of failure.

(That is all, of course, without getting advantages from aid or preparation, both of which can provide a boost.)

Whether you see the system as largely succeeding or largely failing will tend to depend on how hard your DM leans on those partial success results.

[Anonymouswizard]

Sadly one of the more amusing rules-light systems I've seen, "Here's Some F$&%ing D&D: Minimalist Roleplaying and Sh#%" is incomplete, as it has no rules for monsters. It did pare a PHB including spells and spell descriptions down to two pages, but without a bestiary, I can't recommend it. :smallfrown:

That's annoying, because in Fate it only takes about a page and a half of A4 to go over creating allies and opposition (not just monsters, as Fate uses generic conflicts), which includes nameless mooks, semi-important characters, and full 'deserves a PC sheet's big players, so HSFD&D should be able to provide rules in a page and a page of examples.

Heck, one of the projects I'm thinking of working on is 'Simple Fantasy/Dungeon Smaller' (undecided on the name), an attempt to create a D&D style game with about 4 sides of A4 for the players and 4 sides for the GM' (I'm going a different route to HSFD&D so I need more space), which leaves me only about a side and a half of A4 for spells and two for sample monsters. I think it'll be possible.

[JAL_1138]

That's annoying, because in Fate it only takes about a page and a half of A4 to go over creating allies and opposition (not just monsters, as Fate uses generic conflicts), which includes nameless mooks, semi-important characters, and full 'deserves a PC sheet's big players, so HSFD&D should be able to provide rules in a page and a page of examples.

Heck, one of the projects I'm thinking of working on is 'Simple Fantasy/Dungeon Smaller' (undecided on the name), an attempt to create a D&D style game with about 4 sides of A4 for the players and 4 sides for the GM' (I'm going a different route to HSFD&D so I need more space), which leaves me only about a side and a half of A4 for spells and two for sample monsters. I think it'll be possible.

I honestly think the creator just forgot, maybe. There's a Reddit post by a random commenter with some monster guidelines, but who knows how well they'd work.

[ComradeBear]

As for Dungeon World, unless it's been significantly tweaked from the version of Apocalypse World I played (which doesn't seem likely, based on Friv's summary), it has a major tone difference from traditional RPGs: the expectation is failure, and plot progression by "failing forward." You will screw up fairly consistently, with nasty, nasty consequences throughout. Which can be fun, but it's a drastic departure from many other games.

I will point out that if you are failing on a 7-9 without choice, your MC is literally breaking the rules. I note this because a 7-9 is the most common outcome so long as you have at least a +1 in the stat you're rolling. (And most people angle towards using their good stats.) And even with a 0 you'll be getting 7 or higher around half the time.

On a 7-9 you succeed with a complication, or your MC offers you a hard bargain/tough choice. The tough choice should generally be between Succeeding with Consequence and Failing Without Consequence. If the Move states specific outcomes, the MC chooses from those.

It's also worth noting that it will vary from MC to MC or even campaign to campaign.

But generally speaking, Dungeon World is lighter than Apocalypse World on complications/consequences. (Probably because one is post-apocalyptic and the other is not)

[AMFV]

Hey guys,

I want to DM high fantasy games, but i find that D&D and its family of games to be a little to rules-obsessive for my tastes. Sometimes i want to add an effect or thing for mystique, without worrying about mechanical counters or condiderations. Can anyone recommend a high fantasy system like D&D, but that allows for a certain narrativist (not so rule-conscious) playstyle?

One option that people haven't discussed (not to diss their options) is to take D&D and simplify it and add some more narrativist houserules. Which could be more work, but depending on your system mastery might be able to get you closer to what you want. Or not, it would be a lot of work and the other systems are pretty much ready to go. Just depends on your preferences. But that's closer to D&D than Fate or Dungeon World would be, although again it would be more work, and possibly not far enough in the narrative rules direction.

[Psikerlord]

Hey guys,

I want to DM high fantasy games, but i find that D&D and its family of games to be a little to rules-obsessive for my tastes. Sometimes i want to add an effect or thing for mystique, without worrying about mechanical counters or condiderations. Can anyone recommend a high fantasy system like D&D, but that allows for a certain narrativist (not so rule-conscious) playstyle?

Low Fantasy Gaming (Free PDF: https://lowfantasygaming.com/ ) is rules lite and flexible, but, er low fantasy default. Wouldnt take much to convert it to High Fantasy however - reduce the dark & dangerous magic test to a set 1 in 20, add more fantastic monsters, and run adventures with a high magic theme. Good to go.

[Knaight]

But FATE has the aspect thing right? I dont much like that characters can be "statted" in just a couple of lines that give bonuses.
As has been stated, Aspects are far from the full mechanics of Fate. Between stunts and skills Fate can easily veer into rules medium - FAE is light, Diaspora and Dresden Files less so.

On non-Fate options:
Warrior Rogue and Mage (free)
Chronica Feudalis ($10)
Savage Worlds ($10)
REIGN: Enchiridion ($10)
Deyrini Realms ($30)
REIGN ($35)

Some of the above are lighter than others. The full version of REIGN really isn't that light, everything else on the list is fairly light, with WR&M being a fair bit lighter than the rest.

[Afgncaap5]

I'm gonna second all the votes for Dungeon World.

But since that's been done already, two systems I wanna mention:

-Cosmic Patrol: despite the name, the system is bare bones enough to support most genres. Basically, every character has five stats that are represented by dice (Brawn, Brains, Charisma, Combat, and a Special stat based on the character), and a Lucky Number. Every character has equipment (that intentionally has no information on how or why it's used... the players come up with that on the fly) and one or two weapons that are good at Close, Medium, or Far ranges. Whenever there's a chance of a player failing something, a the Lead Narrator rolls a d20 to set a DC, and the player rolls an appropriate die plus a d12. So a character could be...

Cal "Caliente" Coalbarrel, Hobbit Pyromancer
Brawn d4
Brains d8
Charisma d6
Combat d8
Fire Magic d10 (this is the "Special" stat I mentioned.)
Lucky Number 6 (If I roll a 6, I auto-succeed even if I shouldn't)

Weapons
Cinder Wand, 3 damage, -3 at close range, OK at Medium and Far
Dagger, 1 damage, OK at close range

Gear
Bottle of Bhut Jolokia Juice
Arcane Studies Diploma
Scroll of Star Charts


So, if I want to use Fire against something, I just... do it. I can probably light the campfire without any issue. If there's some reason I might not be able to (it's raining, or in a magical nexus or something) then I'd roll 1d12+1d10 against the Lead Narrator's roll of 1d20. (If I was performing a contest of some sort, like trying to use my Fire Magic to overcome a rival magician's Water Shield, or trying to arm wrestle an ogre, then instead of the Lead Narrator rolling a d20, the Narrator would just roll dice as I do.)

It's one of the most fun systems I've ever played in, and the only real thing I dislike about it is that the monsters in the books tend to have way too much health and armor to make combat as speedy and snappy as everything else in the game. It also tends to lead to more "Improv-Style" roleplaying than most other games I've played, so if you're looking something more like a typical D&D style of roleplaying it might not be for you.

-The other game I'd like to mention is Chuubo's Marvelous Wish-Granting Engine. "Rules Light" might be pushing it with this description; making characters and deciding what kind of game you want to play can be a huge headache, but as soon as you enter the game it practically runs itself. The players will do so much work looking for chances to earn XP that they'll almost take care of all the GMing responsibilities for you. The one issue is that this game is designed with "Pastoral" games in mind; it lists recommended options for playing in Epic Fantasy, Adventure Fantasy, Techno games, and Fairy Tales instead of Pastoral style games, but when you play it that way you're a step removed from the system's strength. It's also a diceless system, so it cuts down on dice management time. A typical character's skills might look something like...

Jim the Vagrant

Hobo Cuisine 1
Find a Convenient Shortcut 2
Vagabond Charm 1
A Nip of Vodka Can Cure Anything 2
General Vagrancy 1
People Are Good 1

You also have a number of points of Intention that you can use to apply yourself to obstacles in your day to day life. So, you use Intention to overcome the difficulty of obstacles in given scenes, and if your skills happen to lend themselves to a problem then, hey, use that skill to overcome it too, it'll add to your Intention. (Intention might be the wrong word, I've not looked at the rule book lately, but it's something like that.)

[Arbane]

How about systems that are more generic like the Chaosium one?

You mean their Basic Role-Playing house system? It's based on RuneQuest, which has been around quite a while. I'd hesitate to call it 'rules-light', but it's certainly not more complicated than D&D3.X. (I personally like it.)
Making a character can take a while, thanks to its rather large skill-list, though.

[Stan]

BRP has several versions, some simpler than others, and has put out quite a bit of material in thelast ~5 years. You can look at the free version of the generic BRP here:
http://www.chaosium.com/content/FreePDFs/BRP/CHA2021%20-%20Basic%20RolePlaying%20Quick-Start.pdf

Something else to consider is Pendragon which is similar but stripped down, then with passions added, where you may be forced to act according to a trait. Each trait is rated 1-20, you role a die in some situations to see if you are ruled by your passions.

[2D8HP]

You mean their Basic Role-Playing house system? It's based on RuneQuest, which has been around quite a while.
I like BRP a lot! It always felt more intuitive than most other RPG's I've played.
If the rules of '70's D&D weren't so imprinted on my mind, I suspect that it would be my favorite rules system.

I'd hesitate to call it 'rules-light', but it's certainly not more complicated than D&D3.X.OK,
the more I learn about 3.5, the happier I am that I went from 1e AD&D to 5e and skipped "D20".

Any way here is a link for free BRP rules:

here (http://www.chaosium.com/basic-roleplaying-brp/)

For some free rules that are very close to the old 1981 "Basic" D&D rules, here is a

PDF (http://www.goblinoidgames.com/docs/GBD1001_no_art.zip)

And these rules (http://www.mediafire.com/?5nzhz1ztiyx) are very close to the hodgepodge of oD&D, 1977 Basic, and AD&D, that I played in my youth.
HAPPY GAMING!:smallbiggrin:http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QTIeBuLnD-A/UR_ToMA9-VI/AAAAAAAAAKA/q8g2RT4XY-s/s1600/holmes+box.jpg

If the game features a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon and you play a Wizard with a magic wand, or a warrior in armor, wielding a longbow, just like the picture on the box I picked up in 1978, whatever the edition, I want to play that game!

[2D8HP]

Something else to consider is Pendragon which is similar but stripped down, then with passions added, where you may be forced to act according to a trait. Each trait is rated 1-20, you role a die in some situations to see if you are ruled by your passions.Whoops, while I was composing my
post @Stan gave you the BRP link! But Stan (who I must say has great taste in RPG's) mentioned the (King Arthur) Pendragon RPG
While I wouldn't call it "simple", Pendragon is my favorite of all RPG's that I never got to actually play. I bought 4 editions of it! Anyway here are a couple of PDF's for it.
How to Play Pendragon™ Basic Overview of Rules (http://www.adnd3egame.com/documents/gk-pendragon-howto.pdf)

Pendragon 5th Edition (http://lolthefol.jdr.free.fr/phpBB2/fichiersjdr/Pendragon/Pendragon.-.5th.Edition.Core.Rules.pdf)

[Stan]

But Stan (who I must say has great taste in RPG's) mentioned the (King Arthur) Pendragon RPG
While I wouldn't call it "simple", Pendragon is my favorite of all RPG's that I never got to actually play. I bought 4 editions of it! Anyway here are a

I never got to play it either. I have only the 1st edition I picked up used 5-10 years ago - things might have gotten more complex since then.

[2D8HP]

I never got to play it either. I have only the 1st edition I picked up used 5-10 years ago - things might have gotten more complex since then.I hope it didn't come from my garage (I've been wondering what pile of boxes it's in)!
Naw, only the "4th" edition (they never actually published the 2nd), has many additional rules (for magic), which were removed from the 5th edition, and all the editions of Pendragon are very similar (unlike some RPG's I could name).
For even more, I recommend:
Greg Stafford's Pendragon Page (http://www.gspendragon.com/)

[Grac]

Gonna second Microlite d20, it's very good. The original Basic set DnD is also wonderfully rules lite, at 48 pages. If you have a basic grasp of any set of dnd rules, then the Holmes Reference Sheets that you can pick up for free from the Zenopus Archives blog are great and give you all the info you need in like 7 pages.

Also, if you have a basic grasp of any edition of dnd rules, then the ultralite Searchers of the Unknown is great. Its rules are 1 page of text, but that's basically for characters. The 'have a basic grasp of any edition of dnd' part is for the dm, to provide a small framework for that to fit into.

[2D8HP]

The original Basic set DnD is also wonderfully rules lite, at 48 pages
I can't be objective about the first RPG rules I ever owned, the first RPG rules I ever loved, 1977's The "Bluebook":
http://i.stack.imgur.com/14nit.jpg
Which came in:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/09/D%26d_original.jpg/200px-D%26d_original.jpg

Which included the In Search of the Unknown (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwizxaKekLDPAhUl3IMKHX8JBHIQFggdMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deathranger.com%2FB1%2520-%2520In%2520Search%2520of%2520the%2520Unknown.pdf&usg=AFQjCNE62h4dgSZlXfrQbkBZ6X42SrBDgA) module.

While the first RPG I was ever a player for was oD&D:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8e/D%26d_Box1st.jpg/175px-D%26d_Box1st.jpg
(shout out to my first DM Richard Lindstrom AKA Whaley)

I was a Dungeon Master using the "Bluebook" first.

It defined both Dungeons & Dragons, and Fantasy Role-playing games for me.

Were I King of California it would be spread all over.

There's so much in it's 48 pages.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_DSs2bX13hVc/TFCCm6tR31I/AAAAAAAACVI/8VYDq43U_yk/s280/stonemt.jpg

[Seto]

I've also got a homebrew system that might be what you want-- rules light without being ill-defined or narrativist. Characters have ten stats, players make every roll, and every check is "roll under your stat, possibly rolling an extra time if circumstances check out," with some adjustment for what your relative power level is. Powers are user-defined, and priced based on their variability. NPCs are just lists of powers and ways they modify PC checks against them. I can send you a PDF if you're interested; I promise it's well-tested and functional.

Yeah, about that - I had some questions for you that I left in the homebrew thread your signature links to, some 14 months ago :smallbiggrin:

[Jay R]

The crucial fact is this. If you are playing a rules-lite system, have a DM whose judgment you trust completely.

Then use any rules you like.

[Knaight]

The crucial fact is this. If you are playing a rules-lite system, have a DM whose judgment you trust completely.

Then use any rules you like.

Rules light systems are terrible for constraining bad GMing*, which I think everyone here agrees with. The question is about finding rules that are liked, and more than that sorting out which rules are liked for what purposes. After all, there are plenty of games that are liked for one purpose that are going to crash and burn horribly in others.

*Although why you'd play in a game with a bad GM who happens to be constrained by a restrictive rules set in the first place is another question.

[Airk]

See i feel like encompassing a character in just a few phrases is TOO simple. Not to mention it might cause more creative players to do better than less creative ones.

I'm curious. How is this LESS information than "encompassing a character in 6 numbers (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha) some of which can literally mean nothing"?



I've never had much of a chance to play, but I have some friends who are big on Savage Worlds, which seems reasonably quick and flexible.

I'm not a fan. It's got a heapton of fiddling "edges" that you get to add. It's nearly D&D 3 level of complexity, IMHO.


The crucial fact is this. If you are playing a rules-lite system, have a DM whose judgment you trust completely.

The crucial fact is this: Playing a rules heavier system will not stop a GM from screwing you. If you don't trust you GM, don't play ANY game with them.


Rules light systems are terrible for constraining bad GMing*, which I think everyone here agrees with.

RPG rules are terrible for constraining bad GMing. I'd actually argue that heavier games are WORSE in some regards.

[Knaight]

I'm not a fan. It's got a heapton of fiddling "edges" that you get to add. It's nearly D&D 3 level of complexity, IMHO.

It's nowhere close. Edges are outnumbed by Feats to a ridiculous degree, and then there's the matter of the rest of the stat block. I actively dislike Savage Worlds, but it's nowhere near D&D level complexity for any D&D edition.

[Airk]

It's nowhere close. Edges are outnumbed by Feats to a ridiculous degree, and then there's the matter of the rest of the stat block. I actively dislike Savage Worlds, but it's nowhere near D&D level complexity for any D&D edition.

I disagree; The core rules seem to have roughly comparable numbers. D&D obviously adds more feats in its umpteen splatbooks, but so does SW. The only difference here to me is that SW splats are mostly for specific settings, so you probably won't use all of them at once, while D&D splats are all for "generic fantasy" and therefore all apply to most games.

The rest of the statblock doesn't seem that different either; The skill list is long and wildly varying in specificity, there's a big ol' list of "powers" you can buy, all of which work slightly differently depending on which flavor of "power source" you buy, a handful of derived stats (okay, D&D probably wins in this category). It's a mess.

I'm pretty sure it at least beats earlier editions of D&D that didn't even HAVE feats. ;) (Never use the term "any edition of D&D" ;))

[2D8HP]

...I actively dislike Savage Worlds...


Actively dislike?

Huh... twice you suggested Savage Worlds as a game that may match my tastes (and judging by the setting books you're probably right):


...Savage Worlds: It's a generic, but I suspect it's a generic you'd like. It's pulpy, the settings made for it tend toward the odd, and it shares some quirks with D&D....



....I could see you liking Savage Worlds though - it seems right up your alley in a lot of ways.


But you don't like it yourself?

That's interesting, I don't like Champions, but it seems to me to be what a lot of folks on this Forum say they want in a RPG, so I suggest it, but while I played it long ago, I don't have as much depth of knowledge to give.

Generally, when people who have played D&D list what they'd like to be different, if their list doesn't sound like Champions to me, it usually sounds like Runequest would fit the bill.

I'd like to steer people to Pendragon because I admire it so much, but I fear that wanting to play an Arthurian Knight is too niche.


...but it's nowhere near D&D level complexity for any D&D edition.


I keep saying this, but both the 48 pages of the 1977 "Basic" D&D rules, and the 128 pages of the 1994 "Classic" Dungeons & Dragons rules seem relatively simple to me, but Call of Cthullu seems the most intuitive.

There a bunch of old D&D "retro-clones" (free and otherwise), so someone must still play games close to old D&D, but I'm genuinely perplexed that BRP based games besides CoC aren't more popular.

I've never played it, but in looking over the very popular game of Pathfinder it seems like someone trying to make Champions but starting with an old D&D chassis.

With a hundred-and-one different "classes", why have any at all?

I'm reminded of the old joke of someone who keeps building a steam locomotive using some old Soviet jet fighter plans, and then they go to an old Russian engineer who explains that you have to "file it a little at the end".

I like old "Basic"/"Classic" D&D, but in looking at what 3.x becomes with all the "splat", the old D&D class/level foundation seems a poor start if the goal is a custom PC superhero game, which high level 3.x looks like to me.

[Grod_The_Giant]

But you don't like it yourself?
Sometimes you dislike something for personal reasons. I subjectively hate Apocalypse World, because I don't like the style it puts forth, but acknowledge that it's objectively well-designed at what it does. <shrug>


That's interesting, I don't like Champions, but it seems to me to be what a lot of folks on this Forum say they want in a RPG, so I suggest it, but while I played it long ago, I don't have as much depth of knowledge to give...
Somewhat an aside, but have you checked out the aforementioned Mutants and Masterminds 3e? It tries to do pretty much the same things as Champions (build-your-own-powers), but with simpler mechanics and math.

[Knaight]

Sometimes you dislike something for personal reasons. I subjectively hate Apocalypse World, because I don't like the style it puts forth, but acknowledge that it's objectively well-designed at what it does. <shrug>

There's a fair few of these for me - they don't fit me, I know I won't have fun with them, and I'd be more than willing to congratulate the designers in person for their work nonetheless because clearly they're good at what they do. Savage Worlds is in that category.

[2D8HP]

...Somewhat an aside, but have you checked out the aforementioned Mutants and Masterminds 3e? It tries to do pretty much the same things as Champions (build-your-own-powers), but with simpler mechanics and math.


Sounds like one to recommend.

BTW, thanks again for STaRS, unfortunately my "stuff to read machine" AKA "smartphone", doesn't seem to be able to access it.

:frown:



There's a fair few of these for me - they don't fit me, I know I won't have fun with them, and I'd be more than willing to congratulate the designers in person for their work nonetheless because clearly they're good at what they do. Savage Worlds is in that category.


That's pretty much how I feel about all modern-day and near-future setting RPG's.

For whatever it's worth while I loved it, I think 1e AD&D was a mistake, the game should have not gotten Advanced, and it seems some of the creators of it agree!:

How I helped to pull the rope that tolled the bell for OD&D (http://kaskoid.blogspot.com/2016/02/how-i-helped-to-pull-rope-that-tolled.html?m=1)

[Grod_The_Giant]

Sounds like one to recommend.

BTW, thanks again for STaRS, unfortunately my "stuff to read machine" AKA "smartphone", doesn't seem to be able to access it.

:frown:
Huh. If you want to PM me an email or something, I can send the pdf directly?

(M&M has an SRD here (http://www.d20herosrd.com/), but I've been told that it's kind of confusing trying to learn from it)

[Knaight]

Huh. If you want to PM me an email or something, I can send the pdf directly?

(M&M has an SRD here (http://www.d20herosrd.com/), but I've been told that it's kind of confusing trying to learn from it)

I got a .doc from you for STaRS, my guess is that the phone can read .pdf and not .doc.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I got a .doc from you for STaRS, my guess is that the phone can read .pdf and not .doc.
Hmm. Maybe you have an older version? I switched over to sending pdfs a little while back. (God knows how many different drafts are floating around out there... one day soon... I'm so close...)

[2D8HP]

Hmm. Maybe you have an older version? I switched over to sending pdfs a little while back. (God knows how many different drafts are floating around out there... one day soon... I'm so close...)


I sent you a PM.

Also...

I wonder what the OP has found/decided?

[Knaight]

Hmm. Maybe you have an older version? I switched over to sending pdfs a little while back. (God knows how many different drafts are floating around out there... one day soon... I'm so close...)

I definitely got the file a while back, so who knows.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I definitely got the file a while back, so who knows.
Oh well. The actual rules have been set for a while, luckily; most of the new stuff is just messing around with presentation.

[Bohandas]

Dungeons and Toons a setting for the Toon RPG (I think from the Tooniversal Tourguide supplement IIRC)