Do you like rules-heavy systems?

[Munin]

I gotta go with the flexibility of a rules-lite system.
Generally, a rules heavy ruleset boggs down play without adding much to a game that basically is played in one's head anyway.
Rules should impose upon the story to the point where they resolve confict(not necessarily just combat) and flavor, but not beyond that.
Spycraft is a good example of this. Attacks of Opportunity don't really fit in too well with a high-action genre, so it got the axe.

If you want to try a system that is light on the rules, I highly recommend Savage Worlds.

 

[Elf Witch]

I prefer a rules light game myself. I have found that with a rules heavy system a lot of players become slaves to the rules. The idea of having fun and doing something creative with a character becomes a point of stress because if you try and do things that are outside of the rules you get "but that is not the way it should be done" "or the rules say this" It is almost like they are afraid to trust anybody but the person who wrote the rules in the first place.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

The complexity of D&D is just right for PCs. However, creating NPC stats, especially for high-level ones, is a major headache.

Either you spend far too much time on them... or you cheat.

This is where pure point-buy systems like GURPS or Mutants & Masterminds have the advantage: You simply write down the attribute and skill values, and you don't even have to calculate their total point value for them in most cases.

In D&D, on the other hand, you pick abilities, class levels, skill ranks, and then you have to calculate all sorts of derived values from them...

 

[Felix]

I like rules.

I like to know what the rules are, which can be bent, which can be broken, and I like to know that before the situation they govern pops up.

That being said, I think the rules are only a skeleton, and it is necessary for the DM and the players to flesh out the game though character development and role-playing. But the fleshing out becomes futile if the skeleton doesn't support it... if the rules are constantly changed, altered, broken or discarded while the fleshing out is happening then what you are left with is an unfortunate mass.

Rules, while not the spirit of the game, are vital to its consistency and verisimillitude. That being said, I am suspicious of rules systems that are deliberately vague because it allows for a greater degree of internal inconsistency. Not that it will happen in rules-lite systems, but that it seems more likely that it will happen.

 

[RFisher]

I like to read rules heavy games. I like to play rules light games.

Or maybe its: I like to play rules heavy games. I like to referee rules light games.

 

[Gutboy Barrelhouse]

Rules-light is my preference.

3/3.5e is rules-heavy but I play 3e and I have fun. I play Moldvay Basic when I can and have more fun.

Always lurking around the boards to see the various 3e-lite projects folks are brewing.

See my sig, my answer to edition wars.

 

[Arnwyn]

I prefer rules-heavy. But, I'm an accountant and my players are twinks, so go figure...

 

[Wormwood]

I'm a Real Gamer™.

I want my games crunchier than a coconut full of carpet tacks.

Fluff is for girls.

 

[Zappo]

I prefer rules lite games like D&D to rules heavy games like Hero and GURPS and Rolemaster.

I agree. Seriously. I've played games way heavier on the rules than D&D, and I don't like them. Too clunky for little benefit.

 

[Jeph]

I like rules that accomplish what they set out to do. Provided I like the design goals to begin with, that is.

Fluff is for girls.

Wouldn't that make you a Real Man™ instead?


--Jeff