Rules heavy = bad; light = good

[Jan van Leyden]

I went to heavier and heavier systems up to and including 3.5e. After running 3.5e in the double digit levels, 4e was a both lighter and heavier at the same time. Thinking about upcoming campaigns, I fondly think of revisiting 2e or trying Swords&Wizardry.

There's probably a sweet spot somewhere in the middle of the complexity scale, perhaps in the area of Earthdawn.

The equation of the subject line aren't true for me, though. My tastes are still changing after all those years and what I'd decree today I'd probably rescind in just a few years

 

[delericho]

Different people like different things. The same person may like different things at different times. And, indeed, the same person may like different things for different purposes - for a one-shot game I'll prefer something pretty light to cut on work, while for a campaign something a bit heavier is probably preferable.

At the moment, my ideal is actually what I'd term "rules-moderate". Actually, at the moment my ideal could well just be given a name: Star Wars Saga Edition. Minus the supplements, this is a 250ish page tome, and while there is some solid underlying math (albeit not perfect underlying math!), it isn't loaded with the huge array of options and complexities that D&D has had in either 3e or 4e. So it gains for being immediately recognisable, and it gains also from being very manageable.

And yet... I find myself driven to tinker with this system just the same as anything else. Because this and this annoy me. I'm sure if I fixed those then it would be perfect...

 

[Jhaelen]

The same person may like different things at different times.

That's me. I prefer alternating between different systems, preferably _very_ different systems. A single system cannot keep me happy forever. I need that change of 'focus' between rules-heavy tactical combat simulation and light-weight storytelling.

 

[steenan]

It's much easier to make a bad rules-heavy game than a rules-light one. In my experience, that is the main difference.

When there is a lot of rules, it's more probable that some of them will be bad. It will be harder to detect the bad parts during playtesting. So there will be some rules that are contradictory, overpowered, underpowered or create absurd effects. And when a problem is observed, it's harder to fix at the table, because there are many interacting parts.

I think I could like rules-heavy games. But I know only one rules-heavy game that works for me (D&D 4e) and none that I consider really good (that is, with no need for improvements), while there is a lot of rules-medium and rules-light games in these categories.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I feel like I'm seeing the above viewed almost as a consensus these days. It's probably confirmation. bias, but I figured it was worth asking. It really seems to be the thing right now - rules light games coming at us from every direction, but nary a new heavy system in sight

There's a thread ongoing right here in EN World about whether DDN will be rules-lite or not. And plenty of really awesome games recently have been billed as light/fast etc.

I have a bunch of rules lite games on my bookshelf. And they're frickin' awesome, each and every one of them. But there's room on my shelf for heavy, crunchy, tactical systems too. Stuff I can spend a few hours optimizing a character, spaceship, NPC, or what-have-you and actively enjoy that process.

So can I - I just don't play them at the gaming table

What say you? Is lite a progression thing, a phase, or am I a victim of my own confirmation bias and seeing judgement which isn't there?

Or - and I can see this as a possibility - is an aging RPG demographic (and we are) being drawn towards games which demand less of our increasingly in-demand time?

I'll take option C. Rules heavy games have their place - but a lot of the market for rules heavy games has been eaten by MMORPGs and other computerised stuff. Games where you don't have a DM to interpret all the heavy rules - and get the simulation provided by the computer. It's a matter of changing technology.

What is interesting is that WotC already tried rules light(er) with 4E compared to 3E with the known results. So the question is was 4E not light enough or are the ones wanting rules light games just a vocal minority?


Personally I do not necessarily want a system light on rules. That is a bonus but I have other priorities which come first.

4e wasn't an orthodox rules light game. The core rules to 4e are light enough to almost qualify. You can put them on a trifold (something I need to finish). But the characters themselves are an experiment in just how far you can push a light-ish system.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I'll take option C. Rules heavy games have their place - but a lot of the market for rules heavy games has been eaten by MMORPGs and other computerised stuff. Games where you don't have a DM to interpret all the heavy rules - and get the simulation provided by the computer. It's a matter of changing technology.

Another thought comes to mind: a rules-heavy system takes time and effort to be learned an, beyond that, mastered, it demands a big buy-in from its players. With this buy-in the appropriate gamers are probably more inclined to hone their skills with their game of choice than to learn new ones.

They might just be more static in their way of gaming than the friends of lighter systems who are more apt to discuss new, potential toys.

 

[Yora]

I would say "rules heavy = impractical for my campaings", "rules light = not slowing down the progress".

 

[JediSoth]

I think there are a lot of people (myself included) who, as they age and the demands on their time become greater, feel that rules heavy systems are too much work to have fun with. That can come across as them saying Rules Heavy is Bad, when they really mean Rules Heavy is Bad FOR ME.

Personally, I don't have a problem with rules heavy systems, but I find as I get older, I don't have the time to commit to learn the system well enough to truly feel comfortable with them. Plus, there are a LOT more systems available now than there were 20 years ago and I don't have time to learn that many games. I don't want to stick to one game all the time, so I am not gravitating towards rules light systems because it's easier to switch between them.

If someone digs the ultra-detailed character customization and crunch of Pathfinder or D&D, and they have the time for that sort of thing, that's what they enjoy, more power to them. I no longer find that sort of thing enjoyable, so I have started to move away from those types of systems. For me, they are no longer a good fit for my gaming style and time constraints.

 

[Umbran]

What say you? Is lite a progression thing, a phase, or am I a victim of my own confirmation bias and seeing judgement which isn't there?

My guess is that it is neither. Specifically, it isn't confirmation bias, but *selection* bias. To wit - People who are set and happy with a game are not going to spend time on message boards grousing about how their needs are not being met. So, if the majority of gamers are out there happily playing 3.x/pathfinder or 4e, they are selected out of your signal, and you wont hear them.

Or - and I can see this as a possibility - is an aging RPG demographic (and we are) being drawn towards games which demand less of our increasingly in-demand time?

I don't think it works that way. Let's step over into an analogy - leisure motorcycles. Say I have 10 hours a month to engage in my hobby.

If I am a gearhead, I'll pick up a bike I can fiddle and tinker with. I'll spend 5 of my hours in the garage tinkering, and 5 riding, and I'll be happy.

If I am not a gearhead, but I love the road, I'll pick up a bike that doesn't need tinkering, and ride for 10 hours, and I'll be happy.

It is not that one activity or another takes up more time. They both take up my ten hours. I just have to pick the one that provides the activities I like more.

Which kind of sums up to, "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

 

[Morrus]

And yet... I find myself driven to tinker with this system just the same as anything else. Because this and this annoy me. I'm sure if I fixed those then it would be perfect...

Do you see the tinkerability as a strength? For me, it can certainly be, because the actual process of tinkering can be very enjoyable and rewarding. I like tinkering with complex games.