Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[Kichwas]

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.

Yeah. Whether I've favorited extremely detailed system or very light systems, very narrative systems or very gamist systems - I've always held to liking very CONSISTENT systems.
Have some common metrics, and re-use them everywhere instead of making 'special mechanics and subsystems' for so many things.

I said either here or in another thread that the final "break" for me on PF2E was the influence subsystem. It was just there to be there, and felt out of place with the rest of the things. It inserted itself over our roleplay and/or skill trade of.

And it wasn't even all that inconsistent. It was just inconsistent 'enough'.

Somewhere else I mentioned that "back in my day" we all learned AD&D 1E, and where I played, folks did the games 'RAW' or you were a cheater. I know almost everyone around here seems to have had rule 0 since the late 70s, but where I was we didn't have none of that cheater nonsense. You played by the rules or the door was that way. First time I saw Rule 0 was maybe 1999 or whatever year it was I found BESM. My first reaction was to consider upping my pitchfork budget to go heretic hunting 'cause I done been brought up different than them there folk'.
- Which I bring up only because... Early on I had to face off against a system that couldn't even be consistent over how to roll to hit somebody...
AD&D 1E had at least 37 different systems for every 1 situation, and all 37 of them used 43 different game design philosophies.

Then I found 'The Fantasy Trip' and pretty everything was 'roll 3d6 vs this number, if you're <= you did it. The rest of this book is just waxing poetic because printers want a certain page count to get a discount on staples or something.'

And since that moment I've realized a game system has all of zero excuse to not be consistent. Regardless of complexity.

Unless of course, they needed to fill page 63 with something to get a discount on staples... But that's what art budgets are for.

I was first exposed to tRPGs in 1980, got AD&D books right after getting the 'redbox' basic set. Found the Fantasy Trip in 82, and had my first regular group in 84 -it'd been constant one shots before that. So from the beginning I was trying to get people to switch to more consistent RPGs and it's how I ended up being a mostly forever GM.

And by the standards of 1982, The Fantasy Trip was also a rules light game. Even if it did evolve into GURPS which is both not rules light and also not very consistent...

 

[Voidmoji]

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.

I would posit that while you seem to place a lot of value on this, it is meaningless to potential consumers.

 

[chuckdee]

Designers, of course, learn from each other.

Yes, though we use steal in common parlance, I like 'learn' better. Steal has an ugly connotation taken out of context.

 

[Arilyn]

Yes, though we use steal in common parlance, I like 'learn' better. Steal has an ugly connotation taken out of context.

Yes, I agree. Steal isn't the best word choice! I should have said learn or inspire.

 

[soviet]

Yes, I agree. Steal isn't the best word choice! I should have said learn or inspire.

I think a bit of stealing is OK! Tarantino describes some of what he does as stealing. Somewhat tongue in cheek, but I don't see an issue with lifting a particular component of something as either an homage, or to set it into a different context, or just to do it better.

 

[Arilyn]

I think a bit of stealing is OK! Tarantino describes some of what he does as stealing. Somewhat tongue in cheek, but I don't see an issue with lifting a particular component of something as either an homage, or to set it into a different context, or just to do it better.

I used steal because game designers use the word a lot but feel @chuckdee made a good point. It could be misread. But yes, designers "learn, borrow, steal" all the time, as do most creatives.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I used steal because game designers use the word a lot but feel @chuckdee made a good point. It could be misread. But yes, designers "learn, borrow, steal" all the time, as do most creatives.

Yeah, back in the day when Steve Perrin looked at an obviously RQ derived game and said it seems oddly familiar, my response was "Well, it pays to steal from the best" and he just grinned.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I mean, honestly, this seems an odd argument. If you consider deriving your mechanics and concepts from other games immoral, that probably declares most of the RPG market immoral; very few just lept fully formed from their designers heads without some elements coming from prior art, and most of the time the designer is well aware of that.

 

[Autumnal]

As a creator myself, I like “steal” for much the reasons I like “elfgames”: it encourages a good perspective about the innately unserious element in what we’re doing. This isn’t vital medical research, political criticism, legal argument, or whatever, it’s about making games. I want to make the best games I can, and I want others to make the best game they can can. But still.

And we exist in a community of shared interests. Writers, artists, musicians, cooks, we all benefit from such communities. We should be inspiring and taking inspiration from each other, all the time. Even though artists (including game designers) may often do their work in solitude, the pile of excellent work done by artists who never enrich their imaginations by engaging in the work of their colleagues is very close to totally flat.

 

[aramis erak]

I'm not sure that there is any universe where I would call Daggerheart "rules light."

On a 6 point scale of
0: theatrical improv
1: Rules Light
2: Rules Medium Light
3: rules Medium
4: Rules Medium Heavy
5: Rules Heavy.
6: Rules Superheavy
Daggerheart is 2-3 depending upon frame and core options in use.
Rolemaster looks like a 4 until you start play, where you realize only CGen is Rules Medium Heavy, and actual play is 2. Same with Hero System, especially in 50pt or 75pt PC non-supers settings.
Traveller looks like 2 at first... but adding the supplementary products (in CT, MT, T4, or MgT 1 or 2), it rapidly closes to 3. If fully integrating everything including Book 9: Pirates, CT can pus towards 4...
Superheavy rules include Phoenix Command, Anything by TriTac, Traveller T5...
Most D&D editions start out 3, end up 4.

T5 Traveller really is crunchy... because it lacks the lists of common items and species... it provides tools for generating the game stats to make your own lists. I rapidly disabused myself of that being an advantage under T:TNE in the 90s. I have little need to go even more whole hog pregame on doing the design. Marc Miller is a great human... but his magnum opus fell on me like a ton of bricks. I will rip some stuff back to my preferred core... MegaTraveller.