Do only DMs like rules lite systems?

[Philotomy Jurament]

...good [rule-heavy systems] (such as 3X) do support a lot more options without either grouping everything in one pot...or leaving more options...up to...GM rulings.

Yeah, those are defining characteristics of rules-heavy systems (fine-grained/more rules, fewer GM judgment/rulings required). Your post sounds like it's assuming that those qualities are better; I disagree. What can I say -- it's a qualitative thing.

If you want the absolute in rules light unlimited options gaming then sit around the table with any random result generator...have the players describe their characters to the GM and start in...Clearly people want something more than this.

Um, okay; no argument from me on that.

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.

I'm glad you don't feel restricted; perception/opinion does count. However, I stand by the idea that more rules does, in fact, mean more restrictions. I didn't think that would be a point of contention, really; after all, the whole point of rules is to define regulations and restrictions. For example, a 3E PC can't power attack without the power attack feat. He can't spring attack without the spring attack feat. Et cetera.

I doesn't bother me that some people like fine-grained, rules-heavy systems. That's fine. But I don't think that such systems are necessarily better.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

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

Call of Cthulhu?

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Call of Cthulhu?

Paranoia.

 

[xnosipjpqmhd]

The players in my group can't be bothered to learn rules. They don't read rulebooks for fun nor consult them unless absolutely necessary.

 

[BryonD]

I doesn't bother me that some people like fine-grained, rules-heavy systems. That's fine. But I don't think that such systems are necessarily better.

Great. I don't have any issue with this statement.

But this is a long way from

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

which I was taking issue with.
I'm happy to see you've greatly revised your position.

 

[BryonD]

However, I stand by the idea that more rules does, in fact, mean more restrictions. I didn't think that would be a point of contention, really; after all, the whole point of rules is to define regulations and restrictions. For example, a 3E PC can't power attack without the power attack feat. He can't spring attack without the spring attack feat. Et cetera.

Action points.
Plus one rule And you just ADDED options. Those you listed as well as MANY others.

Plus I consider those examples pretty bogus anyway.
The feats provide an ADVANTAGE when a character does something.
If a GM can not handle a player saying they are going to try to run past a target and strike at it without the character having the feat spring attack, or hit something as hard as they can with the character having the feat power attack, then clearly this is a flaw in the DM, not the rules. And if a GM can not handle that in 3X then I sure as heck don't want to see them try to have full free reign in a "rules light" game.

I can certainly sit across the table from a player and describe the results of their actions. The specific rules simply provide a system for how to manage it.
The arguement you present is based on the red herring that 3X and other rules heavy games do not allow for GM judgement. Which is absurd. It is idiotic to think that being able to do something a normal person can do is somehow suddenly impossible in the absence of a feat. And that description would fit well for a GM who ruled that way.
Power Attack is NOT the ability to hit something hard. It is the ability to get a maximum result out of the effort and not take any defensive penalty for doing it. It seems completely logical to me that a given charater may take something like that and develop their skill in doing it a lot better than most others. Thus, it is a feat.

Can you explain to me why people who seem to most advocate GM judgement and on the fly calls are always the ones who claim THEY suddenly CAN'T do this? I mean, seriously, shouldn't they be the BEST at this kind of winging it?

If that were really true then the only conclusion would be that rules light GMs like rules light because they just aren't up to the task of more detailed systems. Their ability to handle it just falls apart. Of course I do not believe this to be true. I think it is completely a matter of rationalizing to fool oneself into believing that their opinion is actually a fact.

So, could YOU handle it if a D&D player without Power Attack said they wanted to hit a target as hard as they can? Is the freedom still there thanks to your skills? Or are you not up to the task? I'm betting you'd do just fine. And I also bet it would never occur to you that you just disproved your claim of "restrictions".

 

[BryonD]

Yeah, those are defining characteristics of rules-heavy systems (fine-grained/more rules, fewer GM judgment/rulings required). Your post sounds like it's assuming that those qualities are better; I disagree. What can I say -- it's a qualitative thing.

And to take your first comment last. Yeah, if you keep the parts in that you choose to redact, then *I* certainly think it is much better.

I completely agree that it is a subjective thing. I'm not remotely claiming otherwise.
I have trouble seeing how anyone would find the idea that "my character is equally good at all DEX things" is really a better way to go. Easier and quicker, sure. Choose your own adveture is even easier and quicker than that. That doesn't make it better. But, if people like that, then fine. No issue to me. (And yes, I could handle a player in an "all things DEX" game that was even better at, say, picking pockets than other DEX things. But once you go there, it seems silly to use the "all things DEX" rules to begin with.)

As to GM rulings. Well, first I already pointed out above that GM rulings are important in ANY system and moving away from that is just poor GMing in any rule set. So the "more options" red herring is out. Second, if the rulings are consistent then it is just a rule that isn't written down. (And a GM who can pull that off is almost certainly a really good GM and could run a good game in any system, I'd play any system with this guy. But we are not discussing GMs). OTOH, if the rulings are inconsistent, then, well, that just sucks. (again regardless of system)

Of course the majority of rules light seem to fall in the first group. The group where lots of things are lumped together and the players have LESS options to mechanically build the character that matches the one in their head. Which closes things out on the original point.

 

[Nightfall]

Call of Cthulhu?

You'd think so but no. So far it's a tie between WoD (old version) and D&D. Gurps came in second. At least based on my experience...

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I'm happy to see you've greatly revised your position

Nah, not at all. We're just talking about two different things, apparently. You're talking about:

...rules light seem to fall in...the group where lots of things are lumped together and the players have LESS options to mechanically build the character that matches the one in their head.

Where "options" are the rules and "fiddly bits" that go into a character's build. I'm talking about exercising options in play (i.e. actions you can take, et cetera); I don't think that more fiddly bits in building a character equates to more options in play.

If a GM can not handle a player saying they are going to try to run past a target and strike at it without the character having the feat spring attack, or hit something as hard as they can with the character having the feat power attack, then clearly this is a flaw in the DM, not the rules

Well, take the power attack example. If the request is "can I swing really hard, sacrificing accuracy for maximum power," and the PC in question lacks the power attack feat, then the DM can't really give that PC any meaningful mechanical modifier without undermining the value of the feat for those who selected it.

It is idiotic to think that being able to do something a normal person can do is somehow suddenly impossible in the absence of a feat. And that description would fit well for a GM who ruled that way.

I think you're walking pretty close to the line with statements like that.

Power Attack is NOT the ability to hit something hard. It is the ability to get a maximum result out of the effort and not take any defensive penalty for doing it.

No. It's the ability to exchange accuracy for damage. You lower your accuracy (i.e. subtract from your attack roll) and add the same number to your damage.

It seems completely logical to me that a given charater may take something like that and develop their skill in doing it a lot better than most others.

Power Attack doesn't improve on an existing ability (unless you're talking about pure "flavor" without any effect on game mechanics); it grants the ability. If you want to allow a PC without the Power Attack feat to exchange accuracy for damage, I suppose you can. But in that case you're definitely undermining the value of the feat.

Can you explain to me why people who seem to most advocate GM judgement and on the fly calls are always the ones who claim THEY suddenly CAN'T do this?

I can in the case of Power Attack. If the DM rules that a player without the feat can exchange accuracy for power (manipulating the mechanics), then the value of the feat is lessened or negated. In other words, if everyone can do it, then what's the point of the Power Attack feat?

So, could YOU handle it if a D&D player without Power Attack said they wanted to hit a target as hard as they can? Is the freedom still there thanks to your skills? Or are you not up to the task? I'm betting you'd do just fine. And I also bet it would never occur to you that you just disproved your claim of "restrictions".

I would rule that such a PC could try it (as "flavor"), but without the feat, he couldn't derive any mechanical benefit or adjustment from it. That is, he couldn't subtract from his melee attack and add to his damage. (I would rule this way in order to preserve the value of the feat.) Please tell me how you'd rule on the situation.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I have trouble seeing how anyone would find the idea that "my character is equally good at all DEX things" is really a better way to go. Easier and quicker, sure.

Well, while it isn't representative of all rules-light systems, I'll explain why I like the coarse-grained approach. In a nutshell, I like the simplicity and the ease, and I don't find that additional complexity makes a significant difference in play. So I find it a good tradeoff.

For example, C&C uses an approach that is similar to what you describe (i.e. "my PC is good at Dex stuff"), although there's a bit more to it than that. A PC gets two or three Prime stats, and is good at activities that are governed by those stats (i.e. he gets a bonus). Also, if the activity is central to the PC's concept/class, the PC can add his level as an additional bonus.

So a Rogue (who automatically has Dex as Prime) is going to be reasonably good at all Dex-type stuff (e.g. ballroom dancing), but he'll be especially good at the Dex-type stuff that is covered by his class abilities (e.g. move silently). And he'll get better at the class/concept stuff as he rises in level. Now, it's true that he'll be equally good at all the class/concept Dex stuff, but I don't see that as a big deal. In fact, in d20, it's common to see a Rogue max out his ranks on classic rogue stuff, anyway, so you end up with very similar results. One might protest: "What if I want a rogue who doesn't care anything about picking pockets?" Well, okay. Chances are that rogue isn't going to pick any pockets, in any case. Anyway, it just isn't that significant a concern; you give up some detail for simplicity, but the loss is less significant than the gain, in my opinion. YMMV.

Choose your own adveture is even easier and quicker than ["good at all things Dex"]. That doesn't make it better.

Where you want to be on the rules-light vs. rules-heavy scale is a matter of taste, as we've both agreed. Taken to ridiculous extremes, either end of that scale seems silly, to me. In any case, I don't think anyone in this discussion is advocating taking simplicity or complexity to extremes, so "choose-your-own-adventure," or "gathering around a table with a spinner," or similar scenarios don't seem terribly relevant.