Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[Bedrockgames]

I agree with @Fenris-77 that rules light isn't contrary to consistency. I do think for many of us who like Rules Light, consistency is less of a priority. I want consistency of setting, of the player's ability to feel like they are there. But that doesn't mean I need to create a new house rule every time I rule on an action, or that I need a unified mechanic undergirding every potential action. As long as I have tools to draw on to make my rulings for what feels most appropriate to that moment, that is good with me. I do play rules heavy too and I do think there most players I meet who like that, enjoy having all the mechanics clearly laid out in the advance for any potential action. Theoretically you can do that with light (i.e. roll a d6 every time you want to do anything), but I think they also want varied mechanics handling discrete areas of the game (it can be like d20 with a core d20 roll, but they want individual break downs of skills, abilities, etc). I do think it is hard to come up with a set of core principles though underlying all this. Some rules heavy players I know, want something that simulates the world, some want a game that lends itself to tactics, some like crunch for its own sake.

 

[Fenris-77]

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.

This is quite true, and I say that as someone who has no skin in the game. The crunch rep Hero gets is definitely based on char gen moreso than play at the table.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Agreed. I generally like rules heavy games more than rules light, but PF2 turned me off too, just like 4e did despite it too being a rules heavy system by many standards. And I really love the Without Number games, despite them being lighter than many others I prefer. There are other metrics that matter just as much.

 

[payn]

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 dont think its black and white as you say. I think folks lean into systems for what they offer, but its not perfect. In this thread we have seen folks who like rules heavy because they like engaging in the mechanics of the system. For some, its to provide a stricter sense of simulation, for others they dont want simulation at all. For some, more rules takes the burden of rulings off the GM and players so they can just get into the game. Vagueness allows creativity, but it also allows confusion and disunity. There are upsides and downsides to each. What really matters most, is how folks play together that will impact which one is best for them and their needs.

I like both types and switch up my expectations according to what im playing and the goals of playing that game. Often, folks prefer one or other and try to cram that square peg through a round hole. Which is why you often see arguments form based on how to play RPGs generally, when they ought to be talking about it specifically in that instance. YMMV.

 

[Reynard]

This is quite true, and I say that as someone who has no skin in the game. The crunch rep Hero gets is definitely based on char gen moreso than play at the table.

It's still a crunchy game in play, with the speed chart, END, Stun and BODY and, worst of all (if EN World is to be believed) ROLL UNDER.

 

[Fenris-77]

It's still a crunchy game in play, with the speed chart, END, Stun and BODY and, worst of all (if EN World is to be believed) ROLL UNDER.

Oh yeah, but not as crunchy as char gen, that's all.

 

[overgeeked]

Nothing will protect you from a bad referee.

The referee can ignore the 5000-pages of rules just as easily as the 5-pages of rules.

There’s no guarantee of consistency with more rules, either. Having a gander at most games pre-2000-ish will show you that’s false.

Heavier rules gives you more predefined buttons to press, that’s all. It gives the illusion of more toys to play with. But it’s just an illusion.

If the referee is any good at all, you can try anything and have true tactical infinity regardless of the rules.

Heavier games just take longer to resolve things, longer to read and learn, and longer to play.

I’d rather play an ultra-light game with maybe a page of rules and a good referee who knows the genre/world well. Hell, I’d prefer Free Kriegsspiel Renaissance (FKR) but that kind of talk gets people flamed around here.

 

[Aldarc]

Nothing will protect you from a bad referee.

The referee can ignore the 5000-pages of rules just as easily as the 5-pages of rules.

There’s no guarantee of consistency with more rules, either. Having a gander at most games pre-2000-ish will show you that’s false.

Heavier rules gives you more predefined buttons to press, that’s all. It gives the illusion of more toys to play with. But it’s just an illusion.

If the referee is any good at all, you can try anything and have true tactical infinity regardless of the rules.

Heavier games just take longer to resolve things, longer to read and learn, and longer to play.

I’d rather play an ultra-light game with maybe a page of rules and a good referee who knows the genre/world well. Hell, I’d prefer Free Kriegsspiel Renaissance (FKR) but that kind of talk gets people flamed around here.

Maybe start by not throwing stones in glass houses. When you are throwing around strong inflammatory opinions about heavier or crunchier games, it seems a bit hypocritical to then complain that you get flamed for your opinions about FKR.

 

[dragoner]

Nothing will protect you from a bad referee.

This is the thing, is your table a dictatorship of the GM, or a democracy? I mean the whole rules light vs heavy is a sliding scale, totally dependent on personal definition. Tables develop unspoken rules, people like heavier systems, simply because they have memorized the rules. Adventures from one system are ported to another, and so on.

 

[Celebrim]

Rules light systems means players and their imaginations are unbounded by the rules. Rules heavy systems confine the players and restrict not only what they can do, but confine their imaginations to a narrow list of options.

I find this is not true for a variety of reasons.

Rules light and rules heavy are not synonyms for rules complete. A rules light game can be more rules complete than a rules heavy game in that for example it maps all player propositions to some small set of defined moves that they can perform. Players can be as creative as they like in describing and narrating their moves, but at the end of the day they are all just moves and mechanically all that narration has little or no meaning at all. This means that all but the most expressive narration driven groups will in the long run default to just stating the move that they intend because what they state doesn't matter anyway. Combat almost always devolves down to stating a series of moves and performing the mechanic, and this is true even of rules light systems that aren't rules complete (like BECMI).

Rules light systems give GMs very few levers to pull to adjudicate a player proposition. The more rules I have and the more things that the rules account for and can interact with, the more I can translate creative propositions into mechanically distinct and meaningful acts with real outcomes rather than just the color of outcomes.

One thing that might be the case is that in a rules light game the limits of your character as a playing piece are often much less coherently defined. In a rules light game, because literally everything is on fiat, it's easier to be generous with character propositions into areas that the rules are silent on because the rules don't say the character sucks at whatever they are trying to do.