Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[aramis erak]

Does that philosophy apply to the players as well? What if one player has a problem and everyone else likes it?

Yep. I'll talk to the player about it if the group doesn't hold an intervention first.

 

[Emerikol]

With player facing rolls on non-obscured cases, I don't actually think there's any such thing, honestly, but I'm also of the opinion many GMs consider things like how skilled or armored an opponent is far harder to discern than I think it should be. By the time dice are being rolled, they, after all, mean something so outside of said obscured cases, I have no problem with players drawing the conclusions if they're paying attention. Heck, with the die roll macros I'm using, the opponents bonuses on attack are visible as soon as I hit them; I just don't much care.

It is a judgment call but it's a DM judgment call. We all have different players. Your way fits for you so go for it. My way fits for me so I will continue as I have done.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It is a judgment call but it's a DM judgment call. We all have different players. Your way fits for you so go for it. My way fits for me so I will continue as I have done.

While I understand your opinion, that doesn't change mine that many GMs hold this information too close to their chest. Obviously, they (and you) are not required to care, but that doesn't change my opinion.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

Does that philosophy apply to the players as well? What if one player has a problem and everyone else likes it?

It depends on the degree of feeling. If one player doesn’t like puzzles and the rest do, then it’s reasonable to have puzzles show up every now and then. But if one player has a severe reaction to, say, spiders, and the rest don’t, then you shouldn’t design a scenario with spiders.

Both these examples have come up in my games. I’ve never had strong feelings on both sides, which would really force an issue. Most of the time it’s easy to resolve.

 

[Joanna Geist]

I'd argue your first clause is only true when your definition of "mechanical support" is schematic. At some point when you make rules lighter, you're either disregarding some kinds of output, or you're offloading it on the GM. I don't frankly believe its possible to avoid both.

Example?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Example?

The simplest is combat in almost any game. There are things that don't come up often enough to justify the overhead, but let's look at one that is pretty common with any edged or penetrating weapon: bleeders.

Does your system actually address when a bleeder starts and how it works? If not, you've either decided to ignore it, or are tossing it into the GM's lap. And its a nontrivial element in most kinds of combat.

(It can be one that a given system, because of setting or genre reasons disregards, but its still removing it as an option).

 

[Joanna Geist]

All of the effects of a weapon are reflected in the roll. What difference does it make if you lose Health because of acid or fire or blood loss? You roll the attack and then describe what it looks like, same as any other attack.

Most rules don't provide for simulating humidity or the relation between salinity and depth of a large body of water. Should they? Why or why not?

Btw, bleeding is only "non-trivial" if you decide it is for your game. That's a design decision, not an a priori truth. Whether and how much something matters in real life need not have any bearing whatever on what you decide is important in your game.

Added after the fact : Since I asked you for an example, it's only fair that I provide one.

If I Alice rolls 6 successes for her attack, and Betty rolls 3 for her defense, Betty loses 3 Health. Those 3 points of damage contain all of the information about the attack and this is reflected in the narration. If Alice was using a sword, then that 3 damage represents the stab or slash along with any and all effects associated with it, such as damage to armor or clothing, laceration, bleeding, and whatever else the players come up with (it could also be the case that Betty is playing an evasive character, and narrates the defense as a close call instead).

 

[Jd Smith1]

I like crunch, because crunch = options, and options are the fun of the enterprise.

Low-rule systems means the GM has to ad-lib stuff, and that means inconsistency, and more work for me.

The rules ensure fairness; if PCs and NPCs die the same way (method), then survival is up to the player(s) and the dice.

I couldn't imagine using a system that doesn't factor in blood loss or shock (the two real killers). Or one that limits you to a single action per turn. That, to me, is just not worth playing.

I'm OK with a level-development system, but I also require a dynamic skills list. And if the system has talents/traits/whatever, they better have a good explanation of why a user can do X.

Rules make a game flow smoothly and evenly for all, NPCs included.

 

[Jd Smith1]

All of the effects of a weapon are reflected in the roll. What difference does it make if you lose Health because of acid or fire or blood loss? You roll the attack and then describe what it looks like, same as any other attack.

I can't imagine having to describe what a wound looks like. If your system doesn't convey that via the results, its not for me.

 

[Joanna Geist]

I can't imagine having to describe what a wound looks like. If your system doesn't convey that via the results, its not for me.

What do you mean? Describing what happens in a tabletop game is the game. How do you play if you can't imagine or describe what happens?