Do only DMs like rules lite systems?

[Aeric]

As player and gamemaster both, I prefer rules-medium systems. Just enough crunch to define a character's abilities, but not so much that it becomes an exercise in mathematics to perform actions in-game.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I think it is individualized. However, when I DM I prefer liter rules much more than I do I'm playing.

 

[Drowbane]

I dislike Rules Lite as both DM and Player

OPtion 3.

However, I could see how DMs might be more likely to want Rules Lite than Players...

 

[bento]

I prefer rules-lite as both DM and player (as my sig below indicates).

One reason I really like the True 20 system is character feat portability from D&D.

In my latest adventure, I challenged some of my players who were reluctant to give up their precious 3.5, to bring to me any feats they wanted but felt they could not have in True20. Only a couple of them found a feat that wasn't listed in any True20 book to date and within a few minutes I was able to write up an equivalent feat for their character in the new system.

 

[Glyfair]

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.

This comes close to my opinion. I think personal preferences (guided by experience) pay the largest part. However, players do tend to prefer more detailed rules than GMs.

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.

I think this is one factor. Another related factor is touched on here, control of the game. With explicit rules systems the players have a good expectation of how their actions will work. In less explicit systems there are a lot of things that happen "because the DM said so."

When it comes to control of a game, the GM has more control in a rules-lite system and the players have more control in a rules heavy game. If you have a quality GM that you trust a lot then it doesn't matter. Unfortunately, that's an ideal situation that isn't very common. Every group won't have a quality GM or access to a quality GM.

 

[arwink]

I can think of at least two players in my DnD group who prefer a rules-lite approach, and another three who aren't too concerned with what they're playing as long as they're playing. Mostly, we play DnD because I like it

 

[Aus_Snow]

Neither, really. I've known those on both sides of the screen to prefer either.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

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).

I don't think that your players' opposition is really to rules-lite games, since I'd go so far as to say that Spycraft is the opposite of rules lite. Rather, your players would rather play what they know/have easy access to/have already spent money on.

Anyway... I am the primary GM in my group, and I prefer a lot of complexity in my games... My players tastes range the gamut on this issue.

Later
silver

 

[Wik]

Well, when we switched to a rules-light system for about three or four months, everyone was having a lot of fun. We found that the d6 system's lighter system really encouraged players to take actions that they wouldn't try in D&D (not because they couldn't, but because they weren't sure how the rules would handle things). So, we had a play jump from one airborne car to another, stick a wad of plastic explosive on the windshield, and then leap into the air, to be picked up by the first flying car. We had the same character involved in a running knife fight (he threw knives) with two security guards with rifles - and the character was doing things like tumbling over computer terminals, rolling underneath doors, and jumping whole flights of stairs.

Yes, you can do it in, say, d20 Modern, but often the players think of the mechanics ("I can move thirty feet per round, or double that if I don't take any other action.... I don't think I could really make the necessary jump check rolls to clear that flight of stairs...")

I think Rules-Lite systems really encourates creativity on the part of the players, because you don't have feats and skills in front of you, telling you precisely what your character can and cannot do.

We stopped playing d6 because... well, D&D was getting to be fun again. I'm sure, though, that the next time we're all annoyed with the grappling rules, we'll pick up our d6's and go at it.

 

[cybertalus]

I think rules complexity is always going to be more of a DM issue than a player issue.

A player can ignore options (either in the core rules or supplements) which they find to be above their complexity tolerance.

In order to be able to plan combat encounters that are of the correct difficulty, a DM needs at least a minimal understanding of most of the core rules and all of the options that any of the players are using.