Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[Arilyn]

I can see your point, however my experience with this sort of games stems from early 90's references. They did not catch my interest then, and soo much time has passed I do not recall much other than I had a tendency to dislike them.

In the late 90's I swore off any other system so as not to be influenced by any other RPG. While there may be other great systems out there, taking influence from other RPG systems was not my go to. I wanted an original system of my own creation, and short, rules light systems, always at that point, had felt insufficient for the ideas I had at the time.

To be fair I would have no way of knowing at the time that there would be 20,000 plus other systems out thier by the time I was done. While surely there will be unintentional crossover of ideas, jumpining into rules light systems was largely a bad idea due to time constraints, and my desire to remain pure in my inspiration for rules.

That said I found Dnd left out much of what I was seeking, and overall found it too restricting.

Late 90s games are very different from now.
A tip: The vast majority of game designers run and read a wide variety of games. The more you dive into rpgs, the better you'll be at game design. Cutting yourself off from the wider hobby in order to avoid being influenced is not a good idea. Designers 'steal' ideas from each other all the time. It's this that has driven and refined game design over the decades and allowed a wider variety of game types to exist.

 

[Kichwas]

With just this statement (leaving off the part about swearing off other systems), I don't even see how you can form an opinion after so long out of the loop? I mean, you of course have an opinion, but it s not informed by any measure that an average person could consider reasonable, IMO.

Yeah I took almost 2 decades off from the hobby (2005-2022) and that leads me having to put caveats around a lot of things. Which I sometimes forget to do.

Like my perception of rules light vs rules heavy is shaped by games like Rolemaster, GURPS, And D&D 3.5 vs Amber, Everway, BESM, etc…

Then some very recent entries like PF2E vs Daggerheart and Mist.

Most people are working with the references in between like D&D 5e and PBtA.

Those of us with gaps like that or self isolation need to remember we’re talking almost with a different language than the rest.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah.

In consider Mist engine rules light because the "rules" fits on a 2 page spread that is half art. There's a several hundred page book but it's mostly guidance on how to do rulings. It's a multi-hudred advice column.

Like the ancient game 'Go' - the rules for that can fit on an index card, but people have been writing about it how to master it for centuries. It's extremely 'rules light' compared to Chess, but vastly more complex in what you can do with it.

Daggerheart might be a more tricky call. The "rules" are also very short, but the cards are each different abilities - that all work within the constraints of those rules. So I view that as rules light but it looks like others view it as complex.

Well, as I might have implied, I consider the Hero System in many ways simpler than a number of editions of D&D because everything is genuinely built to a common metric, whereas in D&D there are special cases galore, even if most of them are character definitional rather than core rules elements.

 

[Arilyn]

I remember Robin Laws saying that when he originally wrote Feng Shui, it was considered rules light. When he started tinkering with the 2nd edition, players definitely let him know they wanted a lighter system, as they felt the first one to be too heavy.

Our definitions have certainly changed.

 

[1QD]

With just this statement (leaving off the part about swearing off other systems), I don't even see how you can form an opinion after so long out of the loop? I mean, you of course have an opinion, but it s not informed by any measure that an average person could consider reasonable, IMO.

Is there a point you are trying to make here that is somehow useful to the subject? I have my opinions also based on how I like my own system, and a light rules approach would do poorly expressing it. Now unless you are the opinion police and have come to arrest me I'd apprecieate it if you would kindly scroll onward when in the future you come to an opinion you disagree with.

 

[1QD]

Yeah I took almost 2 decades off from the hobby (2005-2022) and that leads me having to put caveats around a lot of things. Which I sometimes forget to do.

Like my perception of rules light vs rules heavy is shaped by games like Rolemaster, GURPS, And D&D 3.5 vs Amber, Everway, BESM, etc…

Then some very recent entries like PF2E vs Daggerheart and Mist.

Most people are working with the references in between like D&D 5e and PBtA.

Those of us with gaps like that or self isolation need to remember we’re talking almost with a different language than the rest.

Noted

 

[1QD]

Late 90s games are very different from now.
A tip: The vast majority of game designers run and read a wide variety of games. The more you dive into rpgs, the better you'll be at game design. Cutting yourself off from the wider hobby in order to avoid being influenced is not a good idea. Designers 'steal' ideas from each other all the time. It's this that has driven and refined game design over the decades and allowed a wider variety of game types to exist.

Designers steal ideas? Openly? Umm where do I begin? I mean to some degree it falls in a legal "recipe copyright" zone...That I understand, and as someone who has copyright in multiple countries, I can say that openly admitting to stealing other peoples IP is an unwise move.

I will refrain from any further Ted Talks on the subject. Instead I will counter that by staying away from other peoples ideas, then the expression of my game becomes pure creativity, and blends in with the needs of the gaming system as a whole. Not relying on DnD is a double edge sword, while open liscence rules are not available, I am not held down by any DnD expectations, rulesets or even methods of expression. While some may look familiar, (there is only soo many names or labels for Strength for ex), by and by the product has it's own unique feel. If you play my game like you do Dnd, you will most likely fail.

That said, I openly acknowledge that 90's games may be different and that rule's light may be different. It still does not cause me any reason for excitement. It stands to reason, the less rules you have, the more guessing, and just making it up as you go, you will have to do. I can invent a game that determines any and all successes and failiure with the toss of the coin. I can eliminate stats completly and turn everything otherwise into a coin toss.

To some, this may be fun, but it will lack getting familiar with the mechanics, the player will lose much of the sense of mastering a new skill, or researching that ability through thier own efforts. There are soo many treasure troves of rewards hidden in my mechanics that you can almost feel the success of your character. Rules light systems do not carry that same enjoyment for me and nor can they if they are light.

Finally I understand not all will love this approach but for me roleplaying is the easy part, but do your rules reflect life, as a personal observation? Do they truly allow a player to become not just powerful, but goddy? And in doing so, does it still make you earn it? Do you follow a path to godhood? I mean my gaming group just celebrated 10 years of consistant every weekend gaming. My second group is back for its 5th or 6th year. You don't keep people that long over nothing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Designers steal ideas? Openly? Umm where do I begin? I mean to some degree it falls in a legal "recipe copyright" zone...That I understand, and as someone who has copyright in multiple countries, I can say that openly admitting to stealing other peoples IP is an unwise move.

Rules design is not functional IP for any purpose that matters in the hobby. Rules expression can be copyrighted, but rules themselves can't be. There's evidence they could be theoretically patented, but no one goes through the trouble of doing so as you'd need to do it with individual rules (I think the only known case is some particular generalized process in Magic the Gathering).

Honestly, if it was otherwise the hobby would have died in its infancy.

 

[1QD]

Rules design is not functional IP for any purpose that matters in the hobby. Rules expression can be copyrighted, but rules themselves can't be. There's evidence they could be theoretically patented, but no one goes through the trouble of doing so as you'd need to do it with individual rules (I think the only known case is some particular generalized process in Magic the Gathering).

Honestly, if it was otherwise the hobby would have died in its infancy.

Yes, you are repeating my point on "Recipe Copyright", Recipies can not be copyrighted either, just like some aspects of your games design. But I am not talking legal loophole, I am talking moral compass.

 

[soviet]

Yes, you are repeating my point on "Recipe Copyright", Recipies can not be copyrighted either, just like some aspects of your games design. But I am not talking legal loophole, I am talking moral compass.

Just to be clear, your position is that art that takes inspiration from other art is immoral?