Rules-heavy or rules-light for roleplay?

[WarKitty]

I've found, personally, that I prefer rules-heavy systems for roleplay over rules-light. Mainly because it keeps everyone on the same page regarding what is and is not reasonable for a character to do. This helps not only between the players and the DM, but between player and player. I've seen a couple of cases where two players want their character to be really good at something, but have different ideas of what "really good" means - thus leading to conflict. Whereas in a more rules-heavy system the game sets what really good means.

I've also found that rules-heavy systems tend to offer more possibilities for customization of the character's abilities in combat. I.e. if I want to be a sword-mage, a rules-heavy system is more likely to allow me to do it.

Thoughts, playground? I know a lot of people prefer the other way around, and I'm curious why.

[Yora]

I'm fans of rules light. Rules only slow the game down and make people approach the game as a mathematical problem instead of a narrative situation. So the less rules you need, the better.

[jackattack]

Rules-heavy, but the simpler the better.

Whenever something quantifiable occurs, there needs to be some common basic framework to resolve the outcome, especially if you are comparing two characters' abilities. Nothing is worse than having two players start a shouting match over whether one could pickpocket the other (over a single piece of silver), or argue about the virtues of Japanese vs Spanish swords, or whether something could happen because that's not how things work in the real world.

[Madara]

Ever since I started GURPS (Very recently), I've been thinking that rules-light DnD would make players think more about characters than abilities. I find that heavy rules limit what a character can do, using the abilities they have that fit their theme in a creative manner. For example, I would rather have someone use one of their spells in a creative way, than have them try to get a new spell or ability.

That's my 2gp
(yes, gp, because cp are nothing to a wizard)

[Yora]

That's pretty much what the AD&D holdouts are saying.

Personally, I don't think that having rules for lots of things makes the game run smother because people argue less. I think its the other way around that it makes rules-lawyering more likely instead of everyone just rolling with how the GM decides to handle it. Not having rules for everything makes the whole game feel more relaxed.
But that might be the group dynamics of the people I play with.

[DrBurr]

Rules light or no codified RP rules. I like the idea of playing any kind of character and simply saying hes a cook instead of having to train him in three skill ranks of cooking or something.

If their are going to be rules on how rping certain characters, it should be up to the GM. For example if elves are all tree huggers in the GM's game then your elf should love nature at least.

[Madara]

I agree that rules help maintain balance and speed up the game, but I suppose the question that comes to play, is what represents the line between rule-heavy and rules-light?

[The Boz]

I prefer to have as much rules as I can possibly get my hands on, and then use them more like guidelines. Keeps everyone on the same page, but doesn't get in the way of anything.

[Anderlith]

I'm a fan of Rules Heavy, for hard mechanics. What you say & how you do it is fluff, & fluff should be Rules Light.

[WarKitty]

I'm fans of rules light. Rules only slow the game down and make people approach the game as a mathematical problem instead of a narrative situation. So the less rules you need, the better.

I'm guessing this depends on the group. I've found with rules-light, it's harder to get new players into roleplaying, simply because if it's not on the sheet they don't think about it. Whereas with rules-heavy they're more likely to pick up more different aspects.

[Mastikator]

I'm a fan of rule-light games. While rules can be used to define how good a character is supposed to be, the setting fluff can do that job, and while rules can settle disputes, that's the DMs job. I find that rules only contribute when they're good, that is when they're flexible yet simple. And rules otherwise limit the characters and boggle things down. Characters should only be limited to what makes sense in the setting imo.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I prefer rules-heavy games overall, as I believe that it is better to have rules and not use them than to not have rules and be forced to make them up as I go along. I've run into two types of rules-light games, the sort where most of the rules are left up to GM discretion and the sort where you use the same basic system for all resolution mechanic, and neither sort is really my style.

Concerning the "GM makes stuff up" rules-light games: Consistency in rules between sessions, and between two groups playing the same game, is important to me, and a game world's internal self-consistency is also important: if a player wants to do X in the world, I find it works better if (A) it always works the same way and (B) the character has a reasonable chance of determining the outcome (i.e. "I'm good at jumping, and I can usually jump 10-foot gaps, so this 5-foot gap shouldn't be a problem" rather than "Well, I might be able to make this 5-foot gap, if it isn't dramatically appropriate that I fail....").

Concerning the "One rule to rule them all" rules-light games: Reality is complex, and I much prefer using many different subsystems to one unified system if the different subsystems are more mechanically interesting and/or more consistent with the world. This isn't to say that many systems > one system, far from it; I'm saying that, for instance, a version of 3.5 D&D where everything worked off the skill system and every single roll was a skill check, as opposed to having attack rolls vs. saving throws vs. skill checks vs. ability checks vs. whatever else, would not be as mechanically interesting and would possibly have to shoehorn different mechanics into a mold which they did not fit. I'm sure one could come up with a chess-like game where a small set of very simple rules could lead to bazillions of complex interactions to keep me entertained for years, but I haven't found such a game yet.

Also, I'm more of a game designer and GM at heart than a player. I like fiddling with rules between sessions, building characters, mathing things out, and so forth. I like the game part of roleplaying game as much as the roleplaying part, and I like to see how game rules affect the game world, the style of play, and other in- and out-of-game factors. There just isn't as much excitement for me with a rules-light system as there is for a rules-heavy one, and that's purely personal opinion on my part. I like my systems large and sprawling with many complex interactions to be discovered and explored.

[Coidzor]

That's pretty much what the AD&D holdouts are saying.

Personally, I don't think that having rules for lots of things makes the game run smother because people argue less. I think its the other way around that it makes rules-lawyering more likely instead of everyone just rolling with how the GM decides to handle it. Not having rules for everything makes the whole game feel more relaxed.
But that might be the group dynamics of the people I play with.

Alternatively, having a framework that the players can actually look at rather than divine from the changing whims of a person can lead to players having a greater stake and cut down on GM abuses of their privilege.

[bloodtide]

I like Rules Heavy. I like having detailed rules for everything.

Rules don't change the way a player acts anyway. Some players will look at the rules as a straightjacket and fell they must only do what the rules say they can do. Some players only glance at the rules and then just role-play.

[Totally Guy]

Rules don't change the way a player acts anyway.

Rules do nothing but change how a player acts. They highlight what activities are important to a game and what kinds of conflicts are resolvable through which means.

I think the answer depends on what kind of game you are playing.

If I want a game in which the role playing should have meaningful impact on a situation I'd choose something with heavier rules for roleplaying.

If the game is going to be about the some other aspect such as killing monsters or decending into the madness of a shared dream I'd use a system that supports those elements.

[molten_dragon]

I prefer a game heavier on the rules. One of the things that bugs me most about DMs is ones who apply house rules (or any kinds of rules) inconsistently. And that's more difficult to do in a rules-heavy game because you can always look up what it's supposed to be. In a rules light game it's harder to say "the rule is supposed to be this" because there aren't rules written for a lot of things.

[BayardSPSR]

Rules-medium, all the way. Best of both worlds, if it keeps enough detail to avoid significant ambiguity while staying flexible. Of course, most systems aren't rules-medium.

[Knaight]

Rules light, all the way. I need a basic framework, and just a bit more in the areas that are particularly important. Past that, I've found that having more there doesn't help with role play at all, and only slows down the game. It can be fun to play around with for a while, but I always come back to rules light.

[Cespenar]

Rules-light for roleplay, rules-heavy for a game of tactical strategy. Makes sense for me.

[Mike_G]

I like comprehensive rules. Not complex ones.

There should be a rule for jumping, and the players and their characters should have it written down and know what the chances are. I can look at a gap and have a good idea whether or not I could jump it. Doing this as an ad hoc DM ruling means it won't be consistent from one session to the next or one DM to the next.

As far as mechanics, they don't need to be complex. They will always be an abstraction, and come down to die roll modified by attributes and training versus a target number based on difficulty. D20 + Dex mod+skill ranks vs DC works fine. I hate a dozen subsystems. A universal mechanic means that if a totally unexpected situation comes up, and a player proposes something off the wall, the DM has a guideline. "Ok, roll a D20 and add..dex I guess. Plus..Half your ranks in Jump" or "I guess you can use the pool cue like a foil, so attack with your Fencing skill minus 2," rather than BS a percentage based on narrative.

[bloodtide]

Rules do nothing but change how a player acts. They highlight what activities are important to a game and what kinds of conflicts are resolvable through which means.

This is only true for a by the rules type player. This play sits down and only does what is in the rules. In other words, they treat Role-Playing as just another game(like a sports game or a board game).

The free thinking player only looks at the rules after they have thought out an idea or action.

Example 1(By the rules player)--"The thief hopped over the pit? Darn I have no ranks in jump and no spells or magic items of jumping. I guess I let the thief get away..bummer I need better stuff.

Example 2(Free thinking player)--''The thief hopped over the pit? I jump over the pit myself/ find a log or such to make a bridge over the pit/ see if I can climb down and hold on to the edge of the pit and move over to the other side/ make a rope out of my shirt and lasso my way across''

See the difference? Player 2 is not worried that they don't have ''craft bridge making'', they just come up with a way to get over the pit.

[Niek]

I'm fans of rules light. Rules only slow the game down and make people approach the game as a mathematical problem instead of a narrative situation. So the less rules you need, the better.

This. Exactly this. I dont know how many times I've been in this situation:

Me: "So what kind of character are you running?"
Player: "I'm going to play a barbarian."
Me: "But what kind of character is he?"
Player: "Well, I was thinking of taking Monkey Grip."
Me: "BUT WHAT KIND OF CHARACTER IS HE?"

[Yora]

"L-E-V-E-L"

[Knaight]

The free thinking player only looks at the rules after they have thought out an idea or action.

...

See the difference? Player 2 is not worried that they don't have ''craft bridge making'', they just come up with a way to get over the pit.

You aren't familiar with very many systems are you? Both of your examples presupposed a task based resolution system where the rules operate at the level of characters try things, character may or may not succeed. Moreover, both assumed that some sort of in character skill was what determined success. Now, lets take your "Free thinking" example (which is an example of how those games are usually played, and compare it to a somewhat different rules set or two. I'll even maintain the task based resolution system.

GM: "The thief jumps over the pit and spins around the corner, coin pouch in hand."

Player 1 (Task, Character Skill, Item List): "My character isn't very good at jumping, so he'll need to get over some other way. Vyrh looks over his stuff (player does the same), and attaches a wheel on the end of a pole with some rope, saying 'everyone push me while I balance on this' to the party." (Player rolls balance or similar)

Player 2 (Task, Character Skill, Assumed Items): "Vyrh pauses momentarily at the crevasse, thinking. He looks to Minhi, knowing her to be an expert climber, and asks 'did you pick up any of those burrowing pitons by any chance? One of those and a rope would be useful right now.' (Minhi's player rolls Resources+Climbing, and says 'yes' in character). 'Hand them over. I have a thief to catch'.

Player 3 (Task, Relationship/Motivation Track, Item List): "Vyrh briefly hesitates, but picks up stride to leap over the cliff. He considers the medicine he was going to buy for his sister with that money, he remembers the numerous times the guard he idolized chased down thieves and knows deep in his heart that letting this thief get away would disappoint him. So Vyrh runs as hard as he can, leaping without hesitation just the way he saw the thief do. (Vyrh's player rolls Love For His Sister + Idolization Of His Comrade The Guard + Anger At The Thief).

Player 4 (Diceless deterministic conflict resolution, Skills, Item List): "Vyrh jumps over the pit after the thief, chasing him into a dead end as he slowly outperforms him. Once there, he draws his sword. 'What do you have to say for yourself?'"

[Anderlith]

This. Exactly this. I dont know how many times I've been in this situation:

Me: "So what kind of character are you running?"
Player: "I'm going to play a barbarian."
Me: "But what kind of character is he?"
Player: "Well, I was thinking of taking Monkey Grip."
Me: "BUT WHAT KIND OF CHARACTER IS HE?"

This is a flaw in the player not the system. Roleplay is separate from mechanics

[Madara]

This. Exactly this. I dont know how many times I've been in this situation:

Me: "So what kind of character are you running?"
Player: "I'm going to play a barbarian."
Me: "But what kind of character is he?"
Player: "Well, I was thinking of taking Monkey Grip."
Me: "BUT WHAT KIND OF CHARACTER IS HE?"

Three words:
Player: "Dwarf fighter"
Me: "Again?"

But the rules light prevent this situation(at least for my group). You can't be a "dwarf fighter", you have to describe who you are and what you do, otherwise you don't know what abilities your character has.

[bloodtide]

You aren't familiar with very many systems are you? Both of your examples presupposed a task based resolution system where the rules operate at the level of characters try things, character may or may not succeed. Moreover, both assumed that some sort of in character skill was what determined success.

You kind of lost me with all the random examples.......

My point is(regardless of the game system):

1.People that see role-playing as Just A Game, exactly like Monopoly. They see their 'character' as just some writing's on a page. They can not do anything except what is on that page.

2.People that see role-playing as a much more creative, free form experience. They see their character as a real imaginary construct. They can do anything they wish to try.

And this is where the rules come in, as that is the part of the game that determines what happens when a character takes action. And a game has to have an element of chance to make it fun(as it would be boring to play a game where after seconds you won and went home).

And rules light or heavy, a type one person is stuck in the rules. They ignore everything except the rules. They are not fighting an orc, they are fighting some numbers and rules. The type two person uses the rules after they have thought out an action.

[Knaight]

2.People that see role-playing as a much more creative, free form experience. They see their character as a real imaginary construct. They can do anything they wish to try.

And this is where the rules come in, as that is the part of the game that determines what happens when a character takes action. And a game has to have an element of chance to make it fun(as it would be boring to play a game where after seconds you won and went home).

And yet, the shape of the role playing will change. If the rules are written for a gritty setting where anyone who tries to behave "honorably" will die a horrible messy death, the characters in the setting will reflect that. If the rules are written to emphasize relationships and their influence on characters, you will see descriptions that mirror that. That was the point of example 3 - the player decided the character would jump over the pit, and the way the rules work to do that puts them squarely in the position of looking at what this means to the character and who they are thinking of, where in example 1 the decision puts them squarely in the position of looking at the tools the character has available to accomplish their goal.

The people in part 1 were completely ignored by my post. They aren't going to role play much regardless, so they aren't worth paying much attention to in a discussion about how rules influence roleplaying.

As for the statement that games need chance, there are a lot of very good, very successful, entirely deterministic games with no element of chance. Chess, Go, Checkers, Mancala, all of these have been deterministic for a very long time. There are modern video games that are entirely deterministic, such as Frozen Synapse and most puzzle games. There are role playing games which don't feature randomizing elements, most notably Amber.

[Coidzor]

Three words:
Player: "Dwarf fighter"
Me: "Again?"

But the rules light prevent this situation(at least for my group). You can't be a "dwarf fighter", you have to describe who you are and what you do, otherwise you don't know what abilities your character has.

...Just saying dwarf fighter doesn't tell what abilities a character has. If you know the system, you'll know what abilities it doesn't have. Like, magic or ability to influence the game world through its rules if talking D&D 3.X...

The free thinking player only looks at the rules after they have thought out an idea or action.

Example 2(Free thinking player)--''The thief hopped over the pit? I jump over the pit myself

And either fail horribly due to lacking the necessary ability to keep up or the rules governing such get thrown out the window. Or, if you say they look at the rules after they've thought it out, remember that they cannot possibly make such a jump, curse themselves for not remembering such a detail about their capabilities, and then have to think of something else after having spent time hashing this out in real time.

And you really think that's superior to the player knowing the limitations of his or her character and coming up with responses that take that into account? You don't think the character's background and training would influence the way it would approach a given problem?

Or are you just advocating freeform roleplay over using a system?

[Xiander]

I believe both types of game has merit. Personally i prefer rules light, I will get to why.

The thing is that the game effects the players. This is not just a question of light or heavy rules, but also the way they are presented and where the focus lies.

As an example, if I tell my players that I want to run a D&D campaign, I can and do expect their character pitches to be centered around classes and combat ability. Not that they would not provide background stories, but those stories would be constructed over a skeleton of stats and rules.
If I tell the same players that I want to run a world of darkness campaign, I would expect their character concepts to be more based in the setting, with the rules being attached as an afterthought.

Is this because World of Darkness is a lighter system rules wise? Well, it is probably one of the factors. I do admit that the players personality and preference influences this to, but the way the rules are constructed and presented makes a large difference to what kind of game you can expect.

Personally I usually have more fun with a lighter game, focused on the story rather than the mechanics, but that is preference. If I am in the mood for an epic about dragon slaying and evil wizards, I realize that D&D does this rather well and I am not going to try and cram such a story into NWoD mechanics.

Okay, I really should address the question of the thread. I find that heavy complicated rules distract from the role-playing aspect of the game. In short, the more gamelike the situation becomes the less role-playing is to be expected. For example, role-playing seldom survives once you break out the battle grid.
Can you role-play in a a rules-heavy game? Sure. Can you play a rules Heavy game in a way that encourages role-play? of course. The thing is, it can be necessary to deliberately tilt the game towards role-playing in order to avoid everyone being distracted by the mechanics.

Tl;dr: The system affects player attitude. Rules-heaviness can be a hindrance to role-play. This can be downplayed, but it does happen.