Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[PrunellaUK]

Well guess what? That's not something that I ever stated in this thread.

I never said you did. My first post was a response to the OP. And to a large extent so was my second.

 

[GobHag]

Being shackled by the rules is what I'm into--but I hate being shackled to 'reality'. This is why I love and hate Rules heavy games, so many of them are too pre-occupied with boring naughty word like hunger or how many thins you can carry in your backpack(with such dondrum things like water or rope or sleeping bags)

@PrunellaUK Indeed, I'm a worthless slave who has no imagination and can't do anything unless I pay 40$+ bucks so that designer Daddy can tell me what to do.

 

[PrunellaUK]

Then throw off your chains and be free, my friend! Fly free!

 

[GobHag]

I don't want to be free I'm a slave, I want to be chained--that is the point of playing a TTRPG game.

Because right now, I'm already free and to play a game is to be chained. I don't respect you're freedom.

 

[User51]

Being shackled by the rules is what I'm into--but I hate being shackled to 'reality'.

Just to amplify on this point, the other reason for rules heavy games that has nothing to do with the DM's fairness, is that some players really like simulationist games.

There'sften a lot of talk about how this or that mechanic slows down the game. When I was younger, this was never a thing. We were there to game, and if the fight took 2 hours, no problem. We had nowhere else to be. That's generally not the way I play anymore, but I know that others still like that approach.

Conversely, a weakness that has emerged from rules light abstraction at my table is that player creativity is often flattened into the exact same mechanic, such as a bonus or penalty on a roll. I suppose that's because when you have only a few mechanics to play with, there's not as many levers to pull as with, say, 5e's dozens of feats and class abilities.

 

[GobHag]

Just to amplify on this point, the other reason for rules heavy games that has nothing to do with the DM's fairness, is that some players really like simulationist games.

There'sften a lot of talk about how this or that mechanic slows down the game. When I was younger, this was never a thing. We were there to game, and if the fight took 2 hours, no problem. We had nowhere else to be. That's generally not the way I play anymore, but I know that others still like that approach.

Conversely, a weakness that has emerged from rules light abstraction at my table is that player creativity is often flattened into the exact same mechanic, such as a bonus or penalty on a roll. I suppose that's because when you have only a few mechanics to play with, there's not as many levers to pull as with, say, 5e's dozens of feats and class abilities.

For me I naughty word despise Simulationism. I like rules heaviness to play with the rules, the ludic joy of Lifestealing(deal damage/inflict harm and gain benefit) is what I'm after or balancing what I can do round after round.

It is because I want to just fight that I hate wanting to be simulationist.

 

[TiQuinn]

So, in another post I mentioned a gaming group that didn't come back to my table because I mentioned that I preferred lighter systems to crunch. In our discussion via text this came up:

Less rules = less consistency. There's more opportunity for conflict arguing about how something's been handled. More rules gives a black and white picture of what to expect. This group is built on knowing what to expect, and making our decisions based on what we know, and we can only do that because of the heavily imposed rules and ability to find a ruling for anything.

So the philosophy of rules heavy games is that it is better to have everything, or at least most things defined. It's best to have everything about what my character can do clearly defined on my character sheet. While the understanding of a rules light system is that less rules mean more of a chance to think outside your character sheet. If the rules favor just a basic rules like Old School Essentials, or my favorite Castles and Crusades and the rest will be up to the DM to adjudicate.

So in summation, crunching systems better define what you can with a clearly defined rules set. While a lighter system is more up to GM fiat which fans of crunchy game really don't like. At least that is how I perceive it.

What do you think?

I think rules heavy games are fine until you reach that edge case where that the rules do not cover and then the GM is forced to do exactly what rules light games do, and the party has to accept that will happen from time to time. The issue to me isn’t about rules heavy vs rules light; it’s about trust in your GM. Do you trust your DM to make fair, consistent calls? If you don’t, chances are you want the rules as a safety rail and prefer rules heavy games.

 

[Reynard]

I recently tried to get into Pathfinder 2E and I discovered that the juice just wasn't worth the squeeze in regards to the benefits received from rules heavy play in the "D&D genre." There are games, I think, where it is worthwhile (I just started as a player in a Traveller game and while Traveller isn't rules heavy in its basic play, it has lots of rules for trading, pirating, upgrading ships and so on).

My point is, it isn't just "rules light versus rules heavy" -- context matters quite a lot.

For example, creating a character in Champions is a complex, rules heavy endeavor that you have to do at the beginning. But hero is general play is crunchy, but nowhere near as complex as character generation. When we played a lot of champions, some players did everyone else's character generation because they liked it and were good at it, but no one offloaded play to those others.

 

[Golden age Superhero]

I remember trying to make a character for Starfinder and I just had no desire to go through all of the technical work when there are systems that do Science Fiction so much easier and better IMO.

 

[Golden age Superhero]

I recently tried to get into Pathfinder 2E and I discovered that the juice just wasn't worth the squeeze in regards to the benefits received from rules heavy play in the "D&D genre." There are games, I think, where it is worthwhile (I just started as a player in a Traveller game and while Traveller isn't rules heavy in its basic play, it has lots of rules for trading, pirating, upgrading ships and so on).

My point is, it isn't just "rules light versus rules heavy" -- context matters quite a lot.

For example, creating a character in Champions is a complex, rules heavy endeavor that you have to do at the beginning. But hero is general play is crunchy, but nowhere near as complex as character generation. When we played a lot of champions, some players did everyone else's character generation because they liked it and were good at it, but no one offloaded play to those others.

I have spent most of my gaming life defending Hero System. It's true that character creation can take a lot of time but the actual game play is usually not that bad.