Do only DMs like rules lite systems?

[DarkKestral]

I love a good rules-lite system as a player, and as a GM. A good system allows me as a player to build a reasonably effective character without consulting oodles and oodles of books, which is something I appreciate.

As a GM, I like it because I don't have to look up tons of rules. I can have a unified mechanic for figuring out the rough difficulty of a task, so I don't have to look up unusual rules that much, and when I do, they're usually something involved in character creation, which is not something one usually does terribly often. (games w/ high character death counts notwithstanding)

 

[Nightfall]

*still think the best system is the ones with the highest death tolls*

 

[00Machado]

Could it be that instead of GMs preferring rules light, it's GMs gravitate toward rules light when in need of a break from GM workload (as opposed to a simple change of pace which any new game system can provide)?

 

[Hussar]

Well sure, it may better describe what we call rules-light and rules-heavy systems; but it doesn't mean it's always true, or that it has to be the case.

Actually, I would like to step back a bit from my first point. I think there have been quite a few newer games that would qualify as rules light that don't fit in with what I've said. Unfortunately I haven't really had the time to get to know these games as well. From what I've read, games like Buffy, where you have FX budgets (I think that's what it's called) and other games, probably have closed the gap quite well.

I'm approaching this from a somewhat older point of view simply because I haven't had a chance to see newer games in some time.

And, no, I certainly wasn't trying to take a shot at any version of D&D. I was aiming my points towards gaming in general.

 

[Machiavelli]

When I DM, I do so as the benevolent, omnipotent god of the microcosm.

If players call me out on a stat, I often have little more than some notes scribbled on a piece of paper to back me up. Does that creature have fire resistence? Well, I DID say it had a glossy, almost obsidian-black hide of scales, so when the wizard Fireballs it, it doesn't drop like he expected it to. If the wizard had used a lightening bolt, the question would not have come up, so who's to say what that obsidion hide was for? Perhaps it was the focus for a powerful innate spell-like ability that the creature would use as a last-ditch means of defending itself, if only that lightning bolt hadn't killed it too quickly!

It takes some familiarity with normal creature stats to just wing it like that, and I suffer from no illusions of this being anything but railroading. However, the dice are still used, criticals are still scored, supposedly powerful enemies are dropped in a lucky hit... it may be far less random than it would be if I statted everything and left the outcome only in the "hands" of the dice, but it's no less exciting.

That said, if I ever had to DM for someone who insists upon pre-statted everything, I would go nuts. That's too much work.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

As a DM I prefer Castles & Crusades and other rules-lite systems. I can spend more prep time on story and less time statting out NPCs.

As a Player I prefer more rules heavy systems like D&D 3.5. More rules usually means more options. In C&C a Fighter is a Fighter and every fighter will have the same abilities (just like in 1e AD&D). It can get a bit boring for my character to have the same abilities as every other character out there with the same class.

 

[RFisher]

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.

I think a couple of my players are having a bit of trouble understanding this. I'm trying to make them realizing that instead of a finite list of options, they can try just about anything & we'll figure it out together. The third player definately gets it, though.

 

[Imagicka]

Greetings...

Rules-Lite systems would be fine, if someone came up with a great system to encompass pretty much every gaming situation. Problem is, there isn't one. The real world is complicated and messy and there aren't any good simple rules to define everything.

Players tend to believe the idiom that more rules = more options

As far as systems go. Give me a simple system ( Stat + Misc/Skill + die vs. Difficulty) and I'm happy. Just make sure that most of your rules fall under that system. Look at D&D under the d20 system. Turning Undead is convoluted and kinda falls under the Stat+Skill+d20 system, and kinda doesn't.

As far as products go. Give me a well designed, thought-out, play-tested, rules-heavy system. Because I can always throw out the stuff I don't like.

However, the ability to be able to use a rules-lite system is completely up the party/player-GM dynamic that exists. If you have the type of group that can run in a rules-lite environment, that can trust the game master not to run the DM Fiat off the road and crash into a ditch somewhere. As well as the players aren't attempting to make the game difficult for the GM, then it can be very good. But rarely do you have a group that can that can trust the GM explicitly.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

In C&C a Fighter is a Fighter and every fighter will have the same abilities (just like in 1e AD&D).

Except for the variance from assigning Primes (e.g. a Str/Dex/Cha fighter will have a different set of stuff he's good at, compared to a Str/Con/Wis fighter).

 

[Gundark]

Could it be that instead of GMs preferring rules light, it's GMs gravitate toward rules light when in need of a break from GM workload (as opposed to a simple change of pace which any new game system can provide)?

I could see some truth to this. Spycraft 2 can be rule heavy, however since it takes great strides in taking work off the DM I really like the rule set.