Do you like rules-heavy systems?

[thullgrim]

My favorite game system of all time is Rolemaster so guess where I came in on the poll? I guess though that sometimes a gamesystem just 'clicks'. I would rather play RM than any edition of D&D (though to be fair 3e.x/d20 is not bad and its what I play now). I got an instintive feel for the rules of RM on a level I just do feel with other game systems (the feel for 3e is there but not as developed). I can't stand the WW system or Gurps, for instance.

HERO math is a killer but doable. I just don't care for the way combat runs, though if I could port the power/magic system into 3e.x/d20 (current back-burner project) I would be quite happy.
Thullgrim

 

[Bauglir]

The decision looks pretty simple to me...

... Take 10.

-Hyp.

Fair point. I was just thinking in terms of probabilities. Someone else might describe a jump that required a 16 roll as "makable". Under a solid ruleset you can actually know the probabilities involved instead of having to rely on a vague description which might not mean what you think it does..

 

[Calico_Jack73]

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..)

Seems to me that it would be just as easy if not easier if you were playing a more open game like Storyteller. You'd want to jump it and I'd have you roll your Strength + Athletics vs Difficulty 6 and need 2 successess to do it.

See, I don't really like the idea of players putting the odds together like that. It is too much like Battletech. For me it is far better for the game if the Player asks the DM if he thinks he can make it and the DM will give an honest DESCRIPTION based upon the player's abilities rather than the Player stating "Oh, piece of cake, all I need is to roll a 10 or better to clear that pit".

Would you as a real person know for sure if you could make the jump? If you yourself went up to a 10 foot wide pit would you break out a calculator, scratch paper, and a pencil to start figuring out your odds on jumping the pit? Of course not, you'd go over to the side, decide if you feel lucky and either choose to jump or not.

 

[Shemeska]

All rules are to me is the framework a story and interactions within it are based upon. The moment they get in the way of that they get tossed or modified.

Ignoring rules is fine so long as your players know this and you're equal in doing so for them and NPC's. Overglorified house ruling essentially, but I make sure I apply the same set of rules to both PCs and NPCs alike so its fair.

But seriously, if a rule gets in my way it dies a horrible death before the game starts. I can appreciate the subtlety of some systems' rules, I particularly like Shadowrun's magic system, but I run more often than not in a fairly freeform environment in any game system except for during combats. There are some things that I simply will not abase myself to a rule to decide on how something happens.

 

[Li Shenron]

I like SIMPLE rules. I don't appreciate an increase in game quality or realism if that requires the rules to become a burden for the DM and the players. If rules are kept simple, it's faster to learn and to play, and therefore it's easier to complicate the game -if you want- by introducing new material.

I also like the rules to be beautiful, after all they play a part wihch is similar to the laws of physics: they tell you what to expect from the world around, and therefore they tell you what you can do, since you know what the consequences would be. If the scientific community has to choose between two theories which have approximately the same precision, it would definitely choose the simplest and most elegant of the two, wouldn't it?

That said, I think 3rd edition rules quite fulfill my expectations I don't like when something is modelled in a too much non-linear way or non-modular way, or requires too many rolls (after all, most of the times the point is simply to weight a single probability), or have too many exceptions in different directions.

 

[Psion]

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.

Once you read and understand D&D, you understand that 90% of 3e resolution is ONE mechanic: d20 + mods >= target number.

Dice are not mechanics. The way they are used in D&D, they are essentially equivalent to different numbers of dice or different modifiers in GURPS.

In GURPS resolution is more complicated. Each roll to hit has a defense roll. Armor is handled by two totally separate mechanics, and how it is resolved is different based on your attack.

I GURPS, each skill point cost changes depending on how many points you already have, and there are 4 different skill cost scales (as opposed to cost being either one or two in D&D.) Further, you have to worry about cascade effects of skill purchases in GURPS which creates multiple cross references in any character with a good number of skills, which is much more complicated than the comparable synergy mechanic.

I find the notion that GURPS is light compared to D&D rather hard to swallow.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

Once you read and understand D&D, you understand that 90% of 3e resolution is ONE mechanic: d20 + mods >= target number.

Dice are not mechanics. The way they are used in D&D, they are essentially equivalent to different numbers of dice or different modifiers in GURPS.

I guess my gripe is that I don't like how D&D sets the target number for almost every situation. If the DM deviates from that DC in favor then the players are happy, if he deviates the other way then they are pissed at the DM for not sticking to the rules. Dang it!!! I am the DM!!! Let me set the DC!!! <<mild rant there>>

 

[Desdichado]

I guess my gripe is that I don't like how D&D sets the target number for almost every situation. If the DM deviates from that DC in favor then the players are happy, if he deviates the other way then they are pissed at the DM for not sticking to the rules. Dang it!!! I am the DM!!! Let me set the DC!!! <<mild rant there>>

The rules say the DM sets the DC. Even in a case where the DC is stated in a skill description somewhere (something I completely ignore in my games) the DM has final control over any other factors that influence the DC. This is a rule right out of the book.

Not only that, the DCs stated in the book are samples and examples; guidelines if you will, not rules.

Sorry, sounds like a player problem that you're trying to blame unfairly on the system, IMO.

 

[Henry]

I think that GURPS and 3E are roughly equivalent in terms of difficulty. Where GURPS has cascading skills, PD's and Dodge rolls, 3E has multiple classes and abilities that don't conform with one another, huge spell descriptions, and generally large amounts of detail for relatively easy concepts (describing Turning in D&D takes about a page including charts, and that's just one rather simple concept.)

GURPS' most complex features are in the advanced combat chapters - great rules, but can easily bog down if you let them, with specific hit locations, blow through rules that are different for each part of the body, the rules on automatic fire, etc. One of the interesting side effects of GURPS is that it has the fastest combat system in terms of game-time I've ever seen - a fight can literally be over with in 3 seconds. (And people complain about D&D's fast game-time combats!)

 

[WayneLigon]

Do you (both as a GM and a Player) prefer a system that has rules for each and every situation that may come up in a game or do you prefer one that is more open to interpretation? I thought 1E & 2E AD&D had lots of rules but 3.5 D&D is steadily getting up there.

I never really thought of D&D in any edition as 'rules heavy'; to me, 3E seems a lot lighter than it really is, because of how things work together instead of having separate systems for climbing, then another for swimming, then another.. etc. A really rules heavy system, to me, is something like Rolemaster (this may have changed in the newest edition, which I have not seen), GURPS (when all combat options are used, or when trying to design a vehicle), or a few RPG's that are no longer in print.

Rules-light systems can be good. I've used several of them, from GURPS Lite and Vampire (you have to admire a system where even the combat system is optional) to BESM and Everway. Generally, it depends on how much work I want to put into things (rules-light systems, to me, are more work) and how much I want to improvise.

If you're good at thinking on your feet and coming up with simple adjudication systems off the top of your head, then go for a rules-light approach. I seem to remember reading where some company is doing a 'rules-light d20' system as well, but can't remember the name of it.