Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gorgon Zee" data-source="post: 9594281" data-attributes="member: 75787">This may sound like a trivial observation, but I do not see that there is any consistent philosophical difference beyond the obvious one:A good rules-heavy game make a game fun for people who like rules. A good rules-light game makes the game fun for people who don't want enjoy engaging with rules.A slight caveat -- I actually like both styles, so I am always down for a paragon-tier D&amp;D 4E game with all the feats and classes available, but it's a very different sort of fun from playing Kids on Bikes. I really don't see much in similar in philosophy between various rules heavy games that I have played. For example:D&amp;D 4E was fun because you could spend days building characters to a specific plan (e.g. &quot;the most drow-y drow ever&quot; or &quot;paladin of theft&quot;) and then explore how that plays out mechanically. Appeals to the builder / tinkerer / designer in me.Fate Mindjammer was fun because it created a huge set of examples of how to enhance Fate with rules to simulate a far-future galactic-level civilization. So many options and ideas. This appealed to the simulationist in me -- I can run the world of Iain Bank's Culture with rules for every bit I might need.I also find the argument that lots of rules facilitate simulationist-style games. Like others in this thread, I find that they allow more consistency, but frankly, that consistency is not necessarily great for reaslism. D&amp;D's hit points are an excellent example - very consistent use, completely unable to map to anything vaguely realistic. For me, a game with minimal rules, perfectly adjudicated, would be the best at simulating reality. Base Fate, with a GM who could perfectly define the difficulty of any task would do much better than all the rules in a complex game. Rules-heavy simulationist games help the GM make those adjudications, or define sub-systems to let the GM know how to handle a scenario.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gorgon Zee, post: 9594281, member: 75787"] This may sound like a trivial observation, but I do not see that there is any consistent philosophical difference beyond the obvious one: [B]A good rules-heavy game make a game fun for people who like rules. A good rules-light game makes the game fun for people who don't want enjoy engaging with rules.[/B] A slight caveat -- I actually like both styles, so I am always down for a paragon-tier [I]D&D 4E[/I] game with all the feats and classes available, but it's a very different sort of fun from playing [I]Kids on Bikes[/I]. I really don't see much in similar in philosophy between various rules heavy games that I have played. For example: [B]D&D 4E[/B] was fun because you could spend days building characters to a specific plan (e.g. "the most drow-y drow ever" or "paladin of theft") and then explore how that plays out mechanically. Appeals to the builder / tinkerer / designer in me. [B]Fate Mindjammer[/B] was fun because it created a huge set of examples of how to enhance Fate with rules to simulate a far-future galactic-level civilization. So many options and ideas. This appealed to the simulationist in me -- I can run the world of Iain Bank's Culture with rules for every bit I might need. I also find the argument that lots of rules facilitate simulationist-style games. Like others in this thread, I find that they allow more consistency, but frankly, that consistency is not necessarily great for reaslism. D&D's hit points are an excellent example - very consistent use, completely unable to map to anything vaguely realistic. For me, a game with minimal rules, perfectly adjudicated, would be the best at simulating reality. Base Fate, with a GM who could perfectly define the difficulty of any task would do much better than all the rules in a complex game. Rules-heavy simulationist games help the GM make those adjudications, or define sub-systems to let the GM know how to handle a scenario. [/QUOTE]

Verification