Do only DMs like rules lite systems?

[Gundark]

I am the main DM for our group. After awhile I was feeling a little game burn out and wanted something a little lighter to play. We tried True 20, savage worlds, and Warhammer fantasy. I liked the lighter game (less prep time) and speedier play (combat, less looking up of rules) that some of the above mentioned systems provided.

The players hated it.

They wanted options, they wanted the rules, one of the players buys every WotC book and wants to use spells, feats and the like from them. So we have stuck with d20 for the time being. I have gravitated to other d20 games like Iron Heores and Spycraft 2.0 both which offer less prep time and less look up time. I really like Iron Heores and would use that system exclusively for fantasy games, however I doubt the players would. I really had to fight to get Spycraft to be my modern gaming system (as opposed to d20 modern which again certain players have a lot of the books).

What do you think? Are DMs going to be more in favour of rules lite systems? Or are players going to be more in favour of rules lite? Somewhere in the middle? Tell me what you think.

 

[kenobi65]

Depends entirely on the players (and DM) involved.

I know I like a medium level of rules complexity, because my brain works that way. But, I'd say at least half of the players in the three groups I DM for would like less complexity than that...I have players who are flummoxed by the 3.5 rules on a semi-regular basis, even after playing them for years.

 

[Thanee]

It's personal, not related to GMing or playing at all.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I think that you're right as a rule of thumb, but there are exceptions such as myself. I'm a DM more often than a player, but rules light systems get under my skin. Rules heavy systems get under my skin too, but not nearly as much. This is not to say that I'm obsessed with rules or that I know them all; in fact I tend to play fast and loose with the rules. I just like to have a system that covers a lot of eventualities, and provides a baseline for those which it doesn't cover.

 

[Henry]

It truly comes down to individual preference, but as a general rule I've found that players prefer lots of explicit options in a system, and DMs prefer a lot less explicit options and more control over the rule boundaries.

Why? In my opinion, it's because DMs have a lot more info to keep track of, so they prefer simpler or more ad hoc options. Players, however, have only one thing to track -- their characters, and how these characters are impacted by the game world. Therefore, they're going to want more to control, more to have input on, more to manage to avoid boredom with both character and game world.

DMs, however, have no such problem when they're dealing with dozens of NPCs and monsters and trying to figure out how the world is reacting to the characters' deeds. They've got enough on their plate without wondering whether an NPC needs Devastating Attack or Greater Weapon Spec.

 

[Psion]

As was noted by esteemed game designer Robin Laws, games with more codified rules empower the player more, while less codified rules put more emphasis on GM rulings to resolve situations.

So it may vary by player or GM, but GMs that prefer having a great deal of control (or don't have sufficient temerity to countermand the rules or wisdom to do a good job of it) will prefer rules light, and players who prefer having a better grounding for their expectations will prefer more codified rules. So I selected #1 as the general trend.

But I, as a GM, prefer games that do some heavy lifting but am not afraid of batting the rules aside when they get in the way. That's a superior solution IMO.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I love rules heavy systems.

I hate rule heavy systems when they start to degenerate into multiple sub-systems as D&D has done in the last few years but say GURPS or Hero? No problems.

 

[Shade]

As both a DM and a player, I dislike rule-lite systems.

The more options, the better for me.

 

[T. Foster]

I like rules-lite systems more as a player than as a GM. When I'm playing I don't want to think about the rules at all, I don't want anything to do with them. I want the system to be completely transparent with as few points of contact as possible. I want to picture myself in my character's situation, decide my actions based on that, and have the GM tell me the results without me having to look in any rulebooks or do any math (rolling a die and telling the GM the result is okay, but I'd prefer not to have to adjust the roll -- if there are adjustments to be made, I'd rather they be done on the GM's end). Ideally, as a player, my character sheet should have as few numbers on it as possible. Anything that can't fit on a 3x5 index card is too much.

OTOH, as a GM I know I'm not going to have that sort of rules-transparency and that I'm going to be dealing with rules and numbers, and that being the case it's nice to have examples and precedents and systematic procedures for handling common situations to fall back on so that I don't always feel like I'm starting at square one whenever I have to resolve any sort of action in-game. While in the grand scheme I still come down on the "rules-lite" side even as a GM (my ideal is the 120pp or so of OD&D (1974)), it's not quite as far to that side as I do as a player (where I'd be perfectly happy with an entirely freeform game with no fixed rules whatsoever).

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I prefer rules light as both a player and a gm, but moreso as a gm.