Do you like rules-heavy systems?

[Calico_Jack73]

I know that ENWorld is D&D heavy so I figure that I can already guess which way this poll is going to go.

Do you (both as a GM and a Player) prefer a system that has rules for each and every situation that may come up in a game or do you prefer one that is more open to interpretation? I thought 1E & 2E AD&D had lots of rules but 3.5 D&D is steadily getting up there. I'm thinking about running a different game for my group in a couple weeks where some of them can't make it. In trying to decide what to run I started thinking about systems that don't have as many hard and fast rules. I guess I always liked White-Wolf for that. I can't really ever remember getting into an argument with a player or the GM when I played or ran a White Wolf game because in every situation a target difficulty is up to the GM and it is totally arbitrary. I've come to the conclusion that most of the rules lawyers out there like rules heavy systems because they can't get into a situation where they can't weigh odds or they can prepare in advance for the situation in question. I like D&D just fine but I think they've shot DM's in the foot by putting rules for every situation. All a rule lawyer has to do to ruin the momentum of a game is to whip out the PHB and look up the rule that covers whatever situation the DM has put them into. I think I've reached the top of my D&D interest apex and am starting to move back towards more free form RPG's. Anyone else have that happen?

 

[kenjib]

Yeah, I'm taking a look at the riddle of steel and lejendary adventures now. In addition to the rules heavy issue, I also find 3e to be kind of inflexible in genre/mood/tone without tons of work - precisely because it's so rules heavy that changes for a seemingly simple goal start impacting lots of the rules (as the discussions on low magic attest to, for one example).

 

[Ylis]

I view the rulebooks as guidelines. Typically I find better ways of handling situations for my group...that being said:

I don't really like rules-heavy games, but I do appreciate them in that I can always look up the rules on situations I would otherwise not know how to handle. So, I don't like them, but I appreciate them.

As for rules-lawyers, I usually hand them their books and tell them to run a game elsewhere. I have no place for rules-lawyers in my games, simply because, unlike most games, RPGs are meant to stir the creativity, and that includes creative (as long as it's balanced and just) use of the rules. Besides, changing up the rules a bit makes it new and interesting....

 

[Mouseferatu]

While I love D&D, my ultimate preference is for a lighter rules system. I'd prefer fewer rules, but rules that were broader in application so they could easily be applied to multiple scenarios.

Just as a quick example, I truly believe that it's silly for the D&D game to have different rules (even if they're sometimes just minor differences) for all the various special attacks like trip, sunder, disarm, bull rush, etc. I believe that a single rule to handle all sorts of "non-standard" attacks is not only possible, but far easier to play with. (And yes, I've worked out said rule, and used it, and it hasn't mucked with game balance at all.)

I'd also prefer a drastically shorter spell list, but with more broad-based spells as well.

That said, I don't think you can get any simpler than the core mechanic of D20 + modifiers vs. target number. I think it's all the additional material that complicates D&D, not its "soul."

 

[bubbalin]

If you've ever read Robin's Laws of good gammastering, it does say that rules heavy systems do tend to favour players...
But yeah, dunno. I think you should have put an in between option...

 

[Altalazar]

I like rules that are comprehensive, be they large or small.

The rules for chess are both simple and comprehensive.

If you love rules, you should see Advanced Squad Leader - an excellent game, by the way. Not an RPG, though.

I think they need to cover all circumstances but not be too complicated or difficult to follow in the normal course of the game. It is a delicate balance.

What is bad is when there are huge holes in the rules - but then some of those can only be found with playtesting.

 

[Wombat]

My gaming group & I prefer the "rulez lite" approach to most games. Over the Edge, Paranoia, Nobilis -- these are the types of games we find with the best approach to rules.

In general we have found that the more rules there are, the more arguments there are due to the fact that no one can remember all the rules. More rules means more confusion means more arguments.

However, this is only how my group works. We did run across another group that thought that fewer rules led to more arguments ... obviously our two groups do not cope well together in gaming situations.

 

[diaglo]

i like fun games.

 

[Psion]

I prefer rules lite games like D&D to rules heavy games like Hero and GURPS and Rolemaster.

http://www.nutkinland.com/images/smilies/smiles/mischief.gif

 

[Davelozzi]

I believe that a single rule to handle all sorts of "non-standard" attacks is not only possible, but far easier to play with. (And yes, I've worked out said rule, and used it, and it hasn't mucked with game balance at all.)

Care to share? Throw up a thread in house rules if you don't want to hijack this thread. thanks!