Rule-lite or Rule-heavy describe THE perfect ideal ruleset

[greywulf]

Heh. Count me in the minority who knows HERO too. Love that system, gamed about 10 years of my life using those rules (and Rolemaster) firmly in the face of 1st and 2nd edition AD&D. Glad I did too. HERO is probably the best Superhero roleplaying game ever made.

HERO is great for supers, modern or very low magic fantasy too because of it's gerneric "rule the effect, not cause" logic. I like it's building block nature, and called it the LEGO role-playing game before for that very reason.

Not sure I'd call it rules Lite or optimal though. Good, yes. Quick and easy for a new player? Most definitely not!

 

[Fieari]

The biggest thing I desire in a rule set is narrative consistancy, which unfortunately, D&D doesn't provide. If there's magic, I want it reflected in the setting as to how that impacts culture. If there are price listings for objects, I want the prices to make sense and be reasonable in a real economy... and speaking of which, I want treasure to have -value-. I want a power progression that allows for NPCs to stand a chance compared to the players so that there can be meaningful interaction.

A lot of the above is setting based, but the rules can help shape the setting quite a bit. Consider how the setting would change if D&D used the "Mage" magic system instead of the Vancian system? If that was the only change to the game, the game would feel a lot different, just in the setting, without even really having to touch the setting.

 

[greywulf]

I agree entirely. Ideally, the rules should be guided by the logic and flow of the setting, not the other way round. 'Core' D&D does impose quite a number of principles with little or no regard to a given world setting. D&D magic just "is". Tough if your world doesn't happen to reflect that, you've got a lot fo work on your hands.

D&D is a compromise - and IMHO a good one - in that it promotes consitency across a world of different players and games. The fact the ENWorld exists and we're able to debate it at all proves it's success.

If the average GM wants to deviate (and I can't think of a single GM who doesn't!), there are no shortage of Monte Cook/WoTC/Mongoose/etc. inspired goodies to break and remake the rules in any way or form without even cracking open a brain cell. Which is good.

As an aside - I've just taken a peek at HARPlite and I'm in love already. Looks like Rolemaster has been on the Atkins diet and has returned looking and feeling great. Wow!Guess who's going to ditch this week's session for a little HARP inspired dungeon/forest crawl with a few Very Old School players

 

[Timeboxer]

Actually, I'd prefer less "rules for every specific event" than "guidelines for how to generate a given rule for any situation quickly, with relevant examples".

 

[Steel_Wind]

(I was a Rolemaster fan for nearly 20 years. HARP does not appeal - although RMSS character generation was utterly broken. I preferred RM2.)

Still - all these Rules lite vs Rules heavy threads are - IMO - bitch sessions aimed at a pro-con D&D discussion in disguise.

Fact is, I really really like 3.5. The core system is great. It's modular and I can add to it (or not add books to it) as I prefer. This is a great advantage which permits WotC and others to create material and make an ongoing profit while at the same time leaving me to pick and choose. And I do pick and choose.

 

[greywulf]

Yah. RMSS was terrible. I gave up after failing to understand even 1/3 of it after four or five readthru's, then turned back to my Character Law & Campaign Law, RMCII, etc with a sigh of relief and renewed pleasure.

I value thread like this. No one's bitching that I can see, it's all constructive and positive, which is good Granted some threads like this can get a little.......defensive....but surely that depends on the posters, not on the topic.

Yes, D&D IS good. But it's not perfect. If it was, there will never be a 4th edition and we'd all go to gaming Nirvana. We all chop and change the rule, fiddle, tweek, partly because we can, but also because it's fun!

We're not looking to knock anything, just peeking over a few clouds to see just which direction this whole roleplaying shebang could evolve.

Besides. This is better than what's on TV right now

Back on topic with a VERY small D&D criticism that I think does need fixing. I'd like a game where high level characters aren't so reliant on magic items to maintain their relative power level. Take a 20th level guy from my very low-magic campaign and your 20th level magic-item toting dude from AN Other average campaign would use him as bayonnet practise. That ain't fair or equal.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Do you mean adding the 1e ranger and paladin to the classes of C&C?

Yep. Along with the barbarian and monk, and maybe the bard, depending on what C&C's multiclassing rules look like.

 

[Dragonblade]

My ideal ruleset would be as follows:

-Simple character creation, but one that supports increasing complexity depending on the skill level of the players. The ability to create 10 different archers, who are completely distinct from each other mechanically. Character creation that rewards min/maxing, yet at the same time prevents min/maxed PCs from being unbalanced vs. a PC that wasn't min/maxed. The ability to create stats for level 30 NPCs in the same amount of time it takes to make level 5 NPCs. The ability to create and play any character concept you can envision. Probably some sort of point buy system with caps ala M&M would work best here.

-Tactical combat rules that can be played equally well with or without a battlemat. Combat rules that are complex enough to adjudicate a wide variety of actions and situations without relying on DM fiat. Yet intuitive enough that almost no lookup is required during play. Yet complex enough to support tactical and strategic planning. Combat also has to be lightning fast.

-The ability to support infinite character progression without the verisimilitude of the game world breaking down. PCs should be able to advance to the point where they can challenge and defeat a great wyrm in single combat, but it should never be easy, and they should never be able to walk in and take over a town of NPCs as if they were invincible demi-gods.

-Magic system that rewards players who cleverly strategize their spellcasting ala the current Vancian system, but spontaneous enough that mage PCs and DMs running mage NPCs can create new spells and effects on the fly without slowing down the game, and strategize without having to look up different spells all the time.

-No meta-game effects or rules. By this I mean, no rules that pull you out of suspension of disbelief and remind you that you are playing a game. For example, no ability or special power that can arbitrarily only be activated X times per day for no reason other than to balance the class. Or like in HERO where if you didn't pay for some item or weapon that you find with character points, then you can't keep it beyond the current session. None of that.

-Multi-genre rules. I should be able to run fantasy, modern, sci-fi or whatever all out of just a couple core rule books, all using the same game system.

 

[A'koss]

Though naturally I haven't seen it yet, the theory behind Iron Heroes includes a lot of what I consider to be in an ideal ruleset.

1. Greatly reduced dependence on magic/magic items. While magic exists, you don't require it to be effective at what you do. One of the things I've always found a little odd with D&D is that is not the ideal ruleset to model a lot of the fantasy and mythological settings that inspired it.

2. Adventuring parties not dependent on any specific character class. Although you can run D&D games without the "Standard Four" (fighter-type/cleric-type/rogue-type/wizard-type) it can be difficult in most games. The ruleset should better support a broader range of adventuring styles (all-stealth/all-warrior/all-wizard/etc.)

3. More exciting combat options. This is more for the fighting classes than the wizard classes but the latter could use some more interesting options as well. Iron Heroes with it's stunt system, skill challenges, combat challenges, combat zones, classes which continue to gain abilities right through to 20th level, expanded feat use... All of which I think is important to keep combat fresh as you get into the higher levels. You want to have that tantalizing carrot to dangle in front of players to keep them interested. For spellcasters, I'd like to see spellcasting changed so that most combat spells should require some sort of an attack roll. There's a lot I'd do to change the magic system in the game, including revamping SR so that is not an all-or-nothing deal, re-work Save or Die/Nerf spells and spellcaster's overall power (scale it down at higher levels, but increase it's frequency to compensate).

4. Whittle down the skill list. I think the list could stand some compression.

5. Balance the game against the encounter, not encounters/day. This is another real plus in Iron Heroes' column. While x/day abilities work within the framework D&D provides, I think it would be better if the game did not assume a certain number of encounters per day. Gear the game so that is balanced against an encounter and let me decide how many encounters PCs should have per day (eg. lots of weak to middling enounters or maybe just one strong one).

6. Take a hard, hard look at high level game balance and viability. I love the idea of HL play, but in 3e the game really starts to break down balance-wise and you really have to run a tight ship to keep it together. The growing disparities between the classes (AC/HPs/Saves/etc) and their opponents often means that a challenge for one character can spell nearly instant doom for another. I really think the game needs to change it's HL philosophy from "Easy to die, easy to come back." to "Hard to die, hard to come back." This also gets back to the point I made ealier about reducing the dependency of magic in the game. HL NPC can take a long, long time to stat out simply because of their equipment.

A'koss.

 

[Rasyr]

(I was a Rolemaster fan for nearly 20 years. HARP does not appeal - although RMSS character generation was utterly broken. I preferred RM2.)

No, HARP isn't for everybody. Neither is any system. That is just a fundemental fact.

As to RMSS, I have never been shy about saying that the chargen portion messed up, and that there are a number of other spots where it was needlessly made more complicated than it had to be. Before now, ICE just could not consider revising it. However, RM is currently being considered for revision (no revision has been started). But, before we can actually plan on doing a revision, we have to decide exactly what needs to be revised and look at a few other things as well. I have even had threads on rpg.net and the ICE forums discussing possible revision ideas over the past few months.

Still - all these Rules lite vs Rules heavy threads are - IMO - bitch sessions aimed at a pro-con D&D discussion in disguise.

You know, that had never actually occured to me. Then again, I haven't been following the other rules lite/heavy threads either.

Fact is, I really really like 3.5. The core system is great. It's modular and I can add to it (or not add books to it) as I prefer.

While I wouldn't say "great", I would say "pretty good" (which is roughly the same thing that I say about HARP ). However, I do have a few issues with it, namely that I personally feel that it is not quite flexible enough to suit my tastes. It may be modular, but that is on a larger scale, and it is not flexible enough to suit my personal tastes. This doesn't mean that I don't enjoy playing, only that it isn't my system of choice.