Do you like rules-heavy systems?

[FireLance]

I like rules-heavy systems provided the rules are:

1. Simple
2. Comprehensive
3. Clear
4. Consistent

By simple, I mean easy to understand and apply. For example, the rules are generally simple in 3.5e: the basic mechanic is to roll d20, add bonuses and match the result to a target number. The methods of determining bonuses and target number are also generally well-defined.

By comprehensive, I mean that the rules should cover all circumstances that arise in play. If my character (as a player) or one of the players' characters (as a DM) wants to try something, there ought to a rule that tells me how to resolve it. The key issue here is a resolution mechanic. Whether I agree with it is another issue (see meta-rules flavor, below).

By clear, I mean that there should be no ambiguities or different interpretations for a rule. A good rules system should not need a separate forum to discuss how the rules work.

By consistent, I mean that there should be some internal logic to the rules. The same rule should work the same way for essentially the same circumstance, e.g. one creature's heat aura should essentially work in the same way as another creature's heat aura - this was not always the case in some games.

Many rules-heavy systems are not good because they fail one or more of these criteria. Comprehensiveness often works at cross-purposes to simplicity, clarity and consistency, for example. Nonetheless, I feel rules are important because it gives the DMs and players a sense of what to expect, ensures situations are resolved fairly and with fewer arguments, and better simulates a functioning world. You can tell I'm generally Lawful, can't you?

Meta-rules Flavor: Some of the objections that have been voiced to the rules seem to me to be just a disagreement about meta-rules flavor. If a person disagrees with a rule that prevents wizards from casting spells in armor, it may simply be because he wants a different flavored game, and thus, a different rule, which allows armored wizards. Not agreeing with what the rules say is quite different from believing there should be no rules.

 

[Dancer]

Actually, I think 3e is much more rules heavy than Gurps. I haven't looked at HERO 5th edition yet but if it's anything like 4th edition then it's probably the most rules heavy of anything this side of Rolemaster. I like a rules light game, which is why I'm currently running Gurps. Once you read and understand the rules, you'll realize it only has 2 or 3 mechanics. One set of dice (three 6sided dice) decide everything. You roll under a set number you succeed. That's pretty much it. The math to get that number is usually add this number or subtract this number. You can make it more completed but it doesn't much more complex than that. Same with D&D. The base system is a little complex (too many formuli) but it gets much more complicated when you start adding in every suppliment under the sun. Just look at the problems balancing prestige classes has become.

 

[kenjib]

http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sft/images/R3_j5_d77.gif is an example of a middle-sized klingon cruiser. (That's just the ship's sheet. The rules are so comprehensive they look like a town charter, with subssections and subrules.)

*cringe*

It hurts us. It HURTS us. Filthy boxeses!!!!!

 

[evildm]

I fall into the middle (though I voted Light) for the most part. I would classify D&D as rules-medium simply because it's the baseline and my group's standard. Everything else is relative to that, whether fair or not.

As for whether rules-heavy or rules-light is preferred, I think it's a case-by-case thing. I don't mind something that can be rules heavy, as long as it doesn't bog down gameplay. I think I find that when dealing with rulesets other than D&D, I prefer rules-light systems to help with the learning curve for my group, as well as with quick adjudication of situations without referencing the rules constantly. YMMV of course, as my group aims typically for cinematic games with not alot of realism.

Additionally, there are extremes to both ends of this that I don't quite like. In my experience, the Imagine role playing game was needlessly complex and on the opposite end of the spectrum, The Window would be a perfect example of too little definition to the point of it making it HARDER to quickly adjudicate a situation in game with any sort of speed and effectiveness. With one, there's so much definition in the rules that it takes away some of the excitement and speed of a dangerous situation in game by delving into minutae which may or may not really have a definite effect on the outcome. With the other, there's so little rules that it becomes hard to maintain an internal consistency, and also bogs down the game while you work out alot of what the rules aren't handling in your head.

d20 as a base game system, with all it's incarnations, now runs the gamut between complex and simple. Not to the extremes mentioned above, mind you, but you can have D&D which is fairly complex, and then you've got things like Mutants & Masterminds, or Grimm (which I've not yet read, but read about, so forgive me if I'm wrong here) that strip out alot of the mechanics.

 

[Eosin the Red]

Actually, I think 3e is much more rules heavy than Gurps. I haven't looked at HERO 5th edition yet but if it's anything like 4th edition then it's probably the most rules heavy of anything this side of Rolemaster. I like a rules light game, which is why I'm currently running Gurps. Once you read and understand the rules, you'll realize it only has 2 or 3 mechanics. One set of dice (three 6sided dice) decide everything. You roll under a set number you succeed. That's pretty much it.

That is pretty much how I would describe Hero System which I don't think of as rules heavy as d20. Kinda funny that one man's (or womans) rules light stomping grounds is another man's rules heavy stomping ground. Once you have the base to Champions it is all butter.

I know allot of people complain about Champs for requiring math degrees, taking hours to make characters and hours to run battles but I just don't get the complaint. Stack the PHB and the splat books next to a guy who has played only GURPs and tell him to make a character that resembles Aragorn and it is going to take him hours....same in Champions. Math is simple....I had to take 4 semesters of college math before I got credit for any so I am basically Innumerite....in otherwords, I am math retarded and I get the math. If you are worse off then me -- well, they probably had to take you to the "special" classes so it can't be that hard. Finally, battles...I run both d20 and Champions on a fairly regular basis and they take about the same amount of time for similar type battles.

Champions has simple mechanics that can be used cross-genre. They don't try to define everything, they make one rule for stunning type damage at range and one for killing...then the player can call it a fire ball, lightining bolt or death ray at their liesure but the player only needed to learn the "core mechanic."

I don't need a champions book at the table to run the game so how do we define "rules heavy."

PS - I dislike loose systems like Tristat and Storyteller, so I guess that is kinda telling about me.

 

[Dark Jezter]

I know that I don't like systems that are light on rules and expect the GM to constantly make up rules on the spot to keep the game going, so I voted rules-heavy. However, I don't like my games to be too heavy on rules or math; nothing kills the enjoyment of a game quicker than feeling like you're doing algebra homework (Champions, anyone).

I agree with the above posters, this thread needs a medium-rules option. Like others here, I would describe D20 as a medium-rules system.

 

[Nighthawk]

After playing Champions, Hero, and D&D for some years now, I prefer a lighter rules system that is not so concerned about covering (almost) all of the details. In the playing groups I have been a part of (please note that), it eventually comes down to numbers for the player character. I suppose I am tired of it, mainly because said playing groups play one game and no others. If only I lived in an area with more of accessible gaming population.

 

[Ottergame]

I think D&D 3.5 is a good medium ground. There's enough rules to cover 99% of the situations that are going to come up and are easy enough to understand if you're anything other than a total moron. Not to many rules, not to few.

On the whole, I perfer a game with more rules than fewer. Most DMs out there aren't good enough to handle a rule light system properly, they come up with rules off the top of their head and fail to keep their same homebrew rules more than one before changing it again.

Rules "light" games have as many rules as a rule heavy game, they just are in the GMs head and you have to pray they are good ones.

 

[Bauglir]

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.

Agreed 100%.

If I'm playing a character in a game, it's the rules that let me know what I can or can't do. The alternative is an inconsistent mess where the NPCs can do a lot more than the PCs in the world, just because they happen to be controlled by the only person present who knows clearly exactly what's possible..

For example, in a 3.5e game, I encounter a 10' wide pit. Iirc the DC of a running jump in 3.5e is the distance, so DC 10. I have no ranks in the jump skill, but I have a str of 16. I need to roll a 7 or better to make that jump. In character I eyeball the pit, and estimate that I could probably make that jump, but it might be close.. I might decide to cross it some other way, or I might risk it, depending on what kind of person my character is, but the important thing there is I have the information I need to make that kind of decision. Without those rules I wouldn't have the faintest notion how likely I would be to make that jump (and further it might be more difficult or less difficult depending on the dm's mood that day..)

Common Sense is very subjective, making it IMO a poor substitute for a good base of rules to support a game.

 

[Hypersmurf]

For example, in a 3.5e game, I encounter a 10' wide pit. Iirc the DC of a running jump in 3.5e is the distance, so DC 10. I have no ranks in the jump skill, but I have a str of 16. I need to roll a 7 or better to make that jump. In character I eyeball the pit, and estimate that I could probably make that jump, but it might be close.. I might decide to cross it some other way, or I might risk it, depending on what kind of person my character is, but the important thing there is I have the information I need to make that kind of decision.

The decision looks pretty simple to me...

... Take 10.

-Hyp.