Do only DMs like rules lite systems?

[Silver Moon]

My rules-lite Play-by-Post campaign is now in its third year and remains popular. I'd say it depends upon the specific mix of players.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I don't really care about rules-lite or not.

But give me a preparation-lite game every time.

 

[Renfield]

Well, I chose the 'neither' option as it was my players who pushed to start a C&C campaign. Now we didn't want it to completely take over our D&D gaming experience, face it, we all invested too much money into our 3e books and occasionally even I like a good crunch fest. But it does comprise half our gaming (two weeks on C&C two weeks on D&D) and is a refreshing change of pace.

 

[buzz]

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.

Yup.

The issue is that Laws' comment only makes sense if you're talking about the difference between "heavy" and "lite" tactical/task simulation systems. Buffy, e.g., gives the GM a lot of power because its system covers the same territory as D&D's ("Did I hit the vamp?", "How much damage can my PC take?"), except with 10% of the rules. In either system, the GM has to exercise fiat when a situation arises that the rules don't cover. The difference is that D&D's ruleset covers a lot of situations, while Buffy's does not.

However, something simple like The Pool (which is, iirc, one page long) or The Shadow of Yesterday, don't give the GM any extra authority. If anything, they're specifically designed to give the players more. Conversely, both GURPS and HERO --extremely complex games-- emphasize that the GM can negate any rule, at any time, in the name of "fairness and dramatic sense." I.e., players have diddly-squat authority.

OTOH, you have games like Burning Wheel and Burning Empires which are seen as very crunchy, yet both offer massive player empowerment and near-zero GM prep.

Anyway, I voted "Other."

As a GM, I prefer systems that don't suck.
As a player, I prefer systems that don't suck.

I don't really buy into the heavy/lite dichotomy, as I don't think operational complexity (i.e., points of contact) really say anything about whom the system empowers, or how easy/hard it is to run, or anything else.

 

[Seeten]

my problem with rules lite is everything I try to do aside from "normal attack" garners me a huge penalty from the DM, who seem to punish "powergaming". Apparently trying to swing on a chandelier, attack from a height to gain advantage, swing really really hard, and try to break their weapons makes you a powergamer, and you need -10 to hit for these actions. My experience with rules lite equates to "Rules straight jacket" of roll d20 and say, "I swing my sword at bad guy normally" while being an identical fighter to everyone else, except my strength is 16 and theirs is 17.

 

[Renfield]

Sounds like you need a new GM, they should award creative play, and all a GM needs to do is remember: if the players can do it, so can the enemies.

 

[RFisher]

my problem with rules lite is everything I try to do aside from "normal attack" garners me a huge penalty from the DM, who seem to punish "powergaming". Apparently trying to swing on a chandelier, attack from a height to gain advantage, swing really really hard, and try to break their weapons makes you a powergamer, and you need -10 to hit for these actions. My experience with rules lite equates to "Rules straight jacket" of roll d20 and say, "I swing my sword at bad guy normally" while being an identical fighter to everyone else, except my strength is 16 and theirs is 17.

Just out of curiosity, which rules light games have you played?