Do only DMs like rules lite systems?

[Nightfall]

*sings holiday cheer while watching PCs die horrible deaths* Yep this is the best way to spend the Holidays.

 

[RFisher]

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. [...] Of course I do not believe this to be true.

Can't--don't want to. Call it either way. Go ahead. Believe it. You won't hurt my feelings.

Consider for a moment, however, that some of us also don't find that we get significantly better results with a more detailed system. Perhaps because we "aren't up to the task". I'm willing to embrace that. Perhaps because we have a different notion of "better results".

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".

+1 to damage for every -2 "to hit" you're willing to sacrifice. I saw at least a dozen variations on that in my oAD&D days. Sure, there was no consistency from DM to DM, but nobody stressed over it anymore than they did the fact that Bob allowed elf clerics & Tom didn't.

It's not about "skills". It's about fun. It's about being able to do nigh anything because you have a person to make rulings instead of a static set of rules that are either incomplete or massive or both. It's about having a person who can overrule a combination of rules that winds up with an unforeseen & unwanted result. It's about giving that person the benefit of the doubt because you know that they're an imperfect human, but that we're a bunch of friends who've gotten together to have fun & that we're willing to accept the imperfections because of the fantastic possibilities we get in return.

(Edit: That is to say, the players give the DM the freedom of knowing his judgements don't need to be perfect, so "skill" isn't necessary. Furthermore, the players should help the DM make good judgements rather than judging his judgements.)

All of which, by the way, applies just as much in my group when we play 3.5e as it does when we play classic D&D.

Edit...

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.

I may not advocate it here, but I've had lots of fun with "light" taken to the extreme.

 

[Nightfall]

I still think my way to celebrate the holidays rocks.

 

[DonTadow]

Aren't up for the task? More like aren't up for the slow, boring sessions that sound more like an Iraq Military update than a d and d game.

I prefer speedy combat, if that means rules light then I guess I'm on the rules light side. But rules light does not mean few character options. The OP mentioned Iron Heroes, which is big on character options. Now, I"m just comparing base book to base book. Splats are rarely included if I don't analyze and own it so it doesnt make a difference if they buy the wotc library it might not see the light of day.

This question in the end though depends on the game and players. I design my campaign world. The players play in it. They give me a lot of trust in coming up with rules suitable for the world, not neccessarily suitable for their play style. I"ve had players hint, ask and near beg to include certain books and I've forbid them. I DM worlds and games I enjoy. I know if I enjoy dmn'n the game, whether they like the fact that their class choice is limited or theres no magic doesnt matter because they love the way the game runs and plays.

A good DM can handle any system.

 

[Wombat]

I have met a number of players who love, love love rules lite systems; I have also met a number who hate, hate, hate them.

Newer players in particular seem to really enjoy rules lite systems. I have used Over The Edge as a "gateway system" to bring potential players into the hobby on no less than four occassions, each time to great success. Many potential new players are actively scared off by most rpg rulebooks ("You mean I have to learn all of that???"), while rules lite systems tend to be friendlier to the eye,

There are also many players that I have met over the years who like a simpler approach to gaming, especially for short-term games. In my time I have found that if the "campaign" is going to be 6 sessions or less, many players prefer simpler systems.

That being said, amongst "veteran" rpg-ers, more GMs than players seem to like them, mainly because by the time you achieve "veteran" status you are either 1) a one-system-for-everything person or 2) a rules floater who will try anything; the latter is more open (usually) to the rules lite approach than the more ossified individuals.

 

[Faraer]

Along the same lines, I think a bigger factor than difference between GMs and players is that between 'gamers' and others. The current players and DMs of RPGs, and even more the minority who buy products, like heavier rules on average than average people. This is a feedback loop or at least a self-sustaining system because the type of books available skews which people are drawn to RPGs and how they see them.

(And I'd say the largest part of the difference between GMs and players is simply that GMs have a bigger load of things they have to adjudicate.)

 

[BryonD]

Can't--don't want to. Call it either way. Go ahead. Believe it. You won't hurt my feelings.

Consider for a moment, however, that some of us also don't find that we get significantly better results with a more detailed system. Perhaps because we "aren't up to the task". I'm willing to embrace that. Perhaps because we have a different notion of "better results".

I'm not disputing that. As a matter of fact, you are taking my logical extension fo someone else's claim and representing that as my opinion. To the contrary, my point is that the absurdity of this conclusion shows the flaw in the underlying claim.

+1 to damage for every -2 "to hit" you're willing to sacrifice. I saw at least a dozen variations on that in my oAD&D days. Sure, there was no consistency from DM to DM, but nobody stressed over it anymore than they did the fact that Bob allowed elf clerics & Tom didn't.

Exactly.
That is my point.
First confusing the feat "Power Attack" with hitting at something as hard as you can is a big error. Power Attack isn't being allowed to do it. It is being GOOD at it.
Second, the rules for a character without PA doing this in D&D are exactly the same as any rules light system I know of. It is up to the GM.
So my point is, if the GM can not handle it in D&D, then how can they possibly handle it in any other system that requires the exact same adaptation?

If it were me in 3X I'd probably add a -4 as a quasi-nonprof penalty on top and perhaps make the character lose their DEX bonus to AC for a round if the circumstances made that reasonable. But the specific choice isn't relevant. The point is that PA is NO WAY limits the actions of a character. No more than Point Blank Shot limits the ability of a character without it to fire at a nearby target. It is just a bad interpretation of the rules to say otherwise. And a criticism of a bad interpretation has not bearing on the actual game system.

It's not about "skills". It's about fun.

Are you REALLY claiming that a GM's skill hasd no bearing on fun.
I honestly can not see that as a remotely reasonable position.

It's about being able to do nigh anything because you have a person to make rulings instead of a static set of rules that are either incomplete or massive or both. It's about having a person who can overrule a combination of rules that winds up with an unforeseen & unwanted result. It's about giving that person the benefit of the doubt because you know that they're an imperfect human, but that we're a bunch of friends who've gotten together to have fun & that we're willing to accept the imperfections because of the fantastic possibilities we get in return.

(Edit: That is to say, the players give the DM the freedom of knowing his judgements don't need to be perfect, so "skill" isn't necessary. Furthermore, the players should help the DM make good judgements rather than judging his judgements.)

All of which, by the way, applies just as much in my group when we play 3.5e as it does when we play classic D&D.

Edit...

Translation: It is about having a skilled GM. (Defining skill and then specifically going out of your way to hand wave "this isn't skill I'm talking about" doesn't hold water)

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

If it were me in 3X I'd probably add a -4 as a quasi-nonprof penalty on top and perhaps make the character lose their DEX bonus to AC for a round if the circumstances made that reasonable. But the specific choice isn't relevant. The point is that PA is NO WAY limits the actions of a character.

Yeah, I see your point. There are certainly ways to address it without stepping on Power Attack and without simply denying a mechanical modifier.

 

[BryonD]

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.

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.

The critically important part is the mechanics and trading the same number. PA gives the ability to make THAT exchange. Nothing in that feat denies characters without PA to try to hit something as hard as they can.

 

[BryonD]

Never mind