Does "rules light" lead to more arguments?

[Oryan77]

I'm not a big fan of rules. My old friends and I winged a lot of rules back in AD&D. I barely even knew how spells worked back then. I used spells without ever reading their description (my interpretation). I'm not saying that was a good thing. It wasn't.

I really had to bone up on my 3.5 rules knowledge though when I moved to CA and started playing with random players. 3e seemed to bring out the rules lawyers in people. I fell into that trap and now all of these years later, I'm trying to be more relaxed with the rules. I still want to use them correctly, but I'm trying to cut down on the amount of roles I require.

"You want to jump on the counter, leap and grab at the chandolier, swing, flip, and land behind the enemy for a flanking position? Ok, roll a tumble check."

Before, I would have asked for jump checks, a grab check, tumble checks, and whatever else I thought was required. Uhg.

The thing is, the ease of 3e rules compared to AD&D, and the use of miniatures cut down on a lot of the arguing and misinterpretations we had in AD&D. I find myself trying to get a balance going these days so that I can focus more on the creative part of the game but still use the rules in a way where the players don't mind if we're bending rules here and there for the sake of fun.

I was wondering though, when people say a system is "rules light", does that mean there is a lot of interpretation left up to the DM? A lot of DM calls? Does a rules light system cause players to argue any more than normal due to disagreements on how a situation should work out rules wise?

 

[Morrus]

Less, in my experience. They often empower the GM more than rules heavy games.

 

[Celebrim]

though, when people say a system is "rules light", does that mean there is a lot of interpretation left up to the DM? A lot of DM calls?

Yes, when people say a system is rules light, they typically mean that it is heavily dependent on DM fiat and house ruling. When you hear them say, "Empowers the DM", they typically mean, "The DM can do just about anything in the undescribed spaces of the game.", but equally this usually implies, "The DM MUST do just about everything in the undescribed spaces of the game, of which there will be a lot, and the game will provide little guidance." Rules light in my experience means a lot of "off the cuff" rulings, and they also have a tendency not to stay "rules light" for very long. Instead, you tend to see them accumulate a lot of unspoken house rules, which - if someone every tried to write down and enumerate all the conventions that they used 'off the cuff' in different situations - would quickly feel several rule books.

Does a rules light system cause players to argue any more than normal due to disagreements on how a situation should work out rules wise?

Probably depends on the personality of the individual players.

 

[JeffB]

Depends on the group. I am in the pro-lite camp.

I avoid people who are rules lawyers, power gamers, or otherwise people who put more time into rules related activity than adventure related activity.

 

[Celebrim]

"You want to jump on the counter, leap and grab at the chandolier, swing, flip, and land behind the enemy for a flanking position? Ok, roll a tumble check."

Before, I would have asked for jump checks, a grab check, tumble checks, and whatever else I thought was required. Uhg.

One of the nice things though about skill checks, is that they quickly reach the point where mundane uses of them require no check because they automatically succeed. So the jump check and the grab check are probably pretty trivial DC, and as such you've got no real need to worry about them after a while, and it all resolves down to what you think 'the hard part' is. You only have to worry about the full process simulation if the PC proposes something that is too epic for their level, at which point you can highlight the multiple modes of failure with a process that the player understands and will have trouble arguing with.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

IME, rules-light results in different kinds of arguments. It is neither superior nor inferior, and it depends in part on your players. And of course no group is likely to have all players of an identical mindset. So if you're running rules-light, player A argues, and if you are running rules-heavy, player B argues instead.

Rules-heavy gives rules lawyers a leg up to moan, whine, and complain. But it also gives DMs more support, and not just in the "harder to make bad/unbalanced calls" area.

Rules-heavy can make the DM's job harder between sessions (3e is notorious for this), but if you have a lot of DM support (eg 4e) it actually makes the DM's job easier.

When it comes to D&D, I like rules-heavy (both as a player and DM), but I'm a big fan of FATE (as a player only), which is rules-light. In fact, I'm less of a fan of FATE Dresden and Strands of FATE, which are (moderately) heavier ruled versions of FATE. I suppose this means I like to avoid the middle, or something.

I don't find rules-light DMing to appeal to me. I'd like some support, and even if rules-light gives me more authority, I end up feeling lost rather than empowered.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Less, in my experience. They often empower the GM more than rules heavy games.

+1 on that.

Usually arguments are about rules. Less rules, less arguments.

 

[saskganesh]

It's largely dependent on the personalities of the people involved.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The people around the table are improvising a story together. It's quite possible to do that with little to no rules whatsoever, so long as everyone is in agreement with how to create the story. Fiasco is a perfect illustration of that.

You can do the exact same thing with D&D if everyone at the table wants to... if everyone sees what their character is capable of, and improvises choices that not only fit in with that, but also creates interesting drama and consequence. But for many players, that is much easier said than done.

RPG rules are in place to assist everyone in creating drama. You have a want... the rules and dice are there to tell you whether you get what you want. Sometimes you do... sometimes you don't. And if you don't, you now have to improvise additional ways around that to try again.

All 'Rules Light' means is that you are comfortable with many fewer indications from the game itself telling you you haven't gotten what you want, and that you can take those smaller number of cues and create your own narrative roadblocks to explain why. You don't need to generate three random numbers to tell you what occurs on three different checks to illustrate why you didn't get what you wanted... a single die role will do.

And for some players and games... even that single die roll isn't necessary.

 

[Celebrim]

DMing to appeal to me. I'd like some support, and even if rules-light gives me more authority, I end up feeling lost rather than empowered.

Rules light doesn't give you more authority.

For me, the consummate proof the rules light isn't, is to take a look at what AD&D does in absence of having a unified skills system. Read through the text of C1: The Hidden Shrine of Tomoachan, or better yet try to actually run the game while pretending you know nothing of unified skill mechanics. Probably 50% of the module's text is covert rules insertion into the system to try to bolster support of the DM in play to the extent that each room can be considered a rules subsystem at times, and the problem with it is that it doesn't even begin to cover the range of judgment calls you'll have to make in play. Some rooms have extensive rules on drowning that calculate percentages down to the finest resolution, but neglect completely to mention how these percentages might be altered if the party tries to lend a hand, throw a rope, or otherwise aid an ally. Not only are you just expected to wing it, but you are expected to wing the even tools and subsystems for winging it on the fly. This becomes a huge burden in play if you are trying to be fair to the players, which is pretty much what the players have a right to expect in anything short of Paranoia. So this is a case where adding more rules to the game actually reduces the number of rules that are actually in play.