Do only DMs like rules lite systems?

[MoogleEmpMog]

Games with incomplete rules, which rely on GM fiat to stand in the place of good design work, do not interest me as either a player or a GM, but I could tolerate GMing them while I would never consent to play them.

Games with complete rules, be they one page or one thousand, interest me as both a player and a GM. In general, games with complete rules offer roughly the same level of player empowerment. The only exceptions I can think of are games like WHFR, which is highly random and thus disempowers both players and GMs, HERO, which is effects-based and thus empowers players more, and games that grant narrative control to players, which (obviously) empower players more.

I don't see, for example, True20 or FATE or Savage Worlds as requiring any greater degree of GM fiat than HERO or d20. Frankly, I don't see them as offering fewer options to the players than d20; FATE, arguably, offers even more options than HERO and leaps and bounds more than d20. FATE incorporates some degree of player fiat/narrative control (and is at least as player-empowering as d20, if not much moreso), while True20 and Savage Worlds are just more concise, but still rules-complete, traditional RPGs and offer the same degree of player empowerment.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

I don't agree with that. It may be true for some games, but that doesn't mean it's going to be true for all games. I guess I'm saying that rules light/rules heavy doesn't impact the division of player/GM power. I can make a very simple game that empowers the players, just as I could make a really complex game that empowers the DM.

 

[jdrakeh]

Depends entirely on the players (and DM) involved.

Agreed. For me, it isn't necessarily the inherent complexity of rules that I dislike, it's the rediculous volume of rules that compose many games. If two game systems let me achieve the same end result but one of them lets me do it with 65% less rules, well, that's the one I'll be opting for (this is, incidentally, why I've taken such a shine to True20).

In terms of actual mechanics, True20 is no less complex than standard d20, it merely jettisons a huge number of superfluous, situation-specific, rules and cuts down on the bean counting (i.e., bookkeeping). I suppose it could be argued that fewer rules equals less complexity, but I haven't always found this to be true.

Sometimes fewer rules equals less complexity but, for me, it usually just means fewer rules. And most of the time, I'm cool with that. Incidentally, I like less rules as both a player and a GM.

 

[Particle_Man]

I as a DM like having a simple ruleset, with monsters I can use without worrying about too many options. Thus I lean towards Castles and Crusades, the villain classes in Iron Heroes, etc.

As a player I like having things to fiddle with, and 3.5 certainly fills that bill.

I am hoping that Savage Worlds provides a useful compromise - simple rules, simple monsters, simple adventures (50 Fathoms is one I want to try, and it is called a "plot point" adventure - again, simple without being railroady), and also fiddly bits (edges) for the players.

 

[Gentlegamer]

I love playing a character in "rules lite" systems. The fewer and more broad the rules are, you have more options because you're not stuck conceptualizing your in-game actions in reference to the rules.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I love playing a character in "rules lite" systems. The fewer and more broad the rules are, you have more options because you're not stuck conceptualizing your in-game actions in reference to the rules.

QFT. I think rules-heavy systems are really offering up lots of rules restrictions; it's only the illusion of more options.

 

[Ry]

Yeah, my players once in awhile feel the need to go back to d20 again, but mostly they prefer my system. They usually refer to their occasional d20 forays as "tasting the pain." I asked one of my long-time players why he keeps going, and he says that he can drink enough to forget what he's playing...

So while I prefer rules-light for running things faster, but it's a sentiment shared by my players.

 

[greywulf]

Rules lite is good for some things, not for others. It's not a player and/or GM thing at all, I don't think.

I love my Microlite20, but wouldn't want to play it all the time - it's a good break after playing an intense full-on D&D game where you want a change of pace, or for introducing new players, running a one-shot, or whatever.

The same GM and players can enjoy rules heavy /and/ rules light, y'know

 

[Hussar]

I don't agree with that. It may be true for some games, but that doesn't mean it's going to be true for all games. I guess I'm saying that rules light/rules heavy doesn't impact the division of player/GM power. I can make a very simple game that empowers the players, just as I could make a really complex game that empowers the DM.

I disagree with this. A codified ruleset (or complex game if you prefer) will automatically take a load of power away from the DM and keep it for itself. Assuming of course that you actually use the rules that are written, it can't go any other way. Now, because the power has shifted away from the DM and into the rules, the players close the gap between the DM and the players considerably.

Because codified rulesets are known beforehand, the players can plan and act according to that ruleset. As was mentioned, the players in 3e will think in terms of move or double move actions. The DM is also constrained in the same manner. He cannot have stuff just happen if he wants to remain within the ruleset.

Rules light systems by and large will empower the DM who becomes the judge of actions rather than an objective ruleset judging actions. If the success of my action depends on both die roll and DM's call vs a die roll, then the DM is gaining power. The former better describes rules lite systems and the latter rules heavy.

 

[BryonD]

QFT. I think rules-heavy systems are really offering up lots of rules restrictions; it's only the illusion of more options.

In practice this statement is completely incorrect.

There are certainly bad rules-heavy systems. But good ones (such as 3X) do support a lot more options without either grouping everything in one pot (my character is equally good at ALL dex type things) or leaving more options completely up to case by case and frequently inconsistent GM rulings.
If you want the absolute in rules light unlimited options gaming then sit around the table with any random result generator (spinner, couple dice, computer, tarot, the GM's whim, whatever), have the players describe their characters to the GM and start in. Total cost = $0. Clearly people want something more than this.

But as to rules-heavy being restrictive. meh, I really disagree. As long as I'm accepting that a D&D game is in the basic genre that D&D is intended to produce, then I've really never felt at all restricted. The ability to see the difference between a) routine activities that are the core of the game, b) one off activities that happen very infrequently and require GM judgement, and c) special circumstances where the rules need to change to fit either the conditions or just making the activity more fun is the key to a good game. The error of restriction occurs when one takes a good system for handling condition A and refuses to allow for the co-existance of conditions B and C. It is a self imposed problem.