Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Do you like rules-heavy systems?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sir Whiskers" data-source="post: 1393993" data-attributes="member: 6941"><p>Most rules-heavy systems developed from rules-light systems. I remember the original SFB rules - not too bad. Then they added fighters. Then pseudo-fighters. Then mines. Then...you get the idea. Each added feature required new rules to be tacked on, rules which generally used a different mechanic than the previous rules. Next thing you know, you're keeping the rules in a large 3-ring binder (not kidding) and just reading through them feels like studying for a physics final.</p><p></p><p>3E started with a few simple mechanics which cover a majority of gameplay. Then rules for the 20% or so not covered were added, e.g., grapples. Then players found certain sections confusing or contradictory (how many AoO's does a hydra get each round?), so we have faq's, errata, and sage rulings. But some of these contradicted each other. So finally, the company updates the rules-set to take into account all these changes, clarifications, and "tacked-on" rules, which (no surprise) creates new problems in the new edition. So what happens? We still argue about some very basic rules, house-rule others, and generally accept that every group will get at least some rules wrong. </p><p></p><p>So we end up with two reasons for rules-heavy systems: poor/changed design, and the scope of the game. Checkers is simple because the game is simple and abstract. But we can't use the rules for checkers to determine whether or not a character survives a fall from a 15' cliff, so we create different rules. And the more situations we expect the rules to adjudicate, the more rules-heavy they become. Each time we, as a community, complain to WOTC about a particular rule, we encourage their designers to add to the rules-set. So we end up with a situation in which most of us say we want rules-light systems, but we demand rules-heavy precision. Ironic, huh?</p><p></p><p></p><p>BTW, just for myself, I define rules-light to mean I don't have to refer to the rules every time I play a game. Checkers, chess, Axis and Allies, bridge, poker, canasta, and other games fall under this heading. Rules-heavy systems require constant referencing. SFB, Third Reich, Champions, 3E, and almost all rpg's are in this group. Some are just not quite so rules-heavy as others.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sir Whiskers, post: 1393993, member: 6941"] Most rules-heavy systems developed from rules-light systems. I remember the original SFB rules - not too bad. Then they added fighters. Then pseudo-fighters. Then mines. Then...you get the idea. Each added feature required new rules to be tacked on, rules which generally used a different mechanic than the previous rules. Next thing you know, you're keeping the rules in a large 3-ring binder (not kidding) and just reading through them feels like studying for a physics final. 3E started with a few simple mechanics which cover a majority of gameplay. Then rules for the 20% or so not covered were added, e.g., grapples. Then players found certain sections confusing or contradictory (how many AoO's does a hydra get each round?), so we have faq's, errata, and sage rulings. But some of these contradicted each other. So finally, the company updates the rules-set to take into account all these changes, clarifications, and "tacked-on" rules, which (no surprise) creates new problems in the new edition. So what happens? We still argue about some very basic rules, house-rule others, and generally accept that every group will get at least some rules wrong. So we end up with two reasons for rules-heavy systems: poor/changed design, and the scope of the game. Checkers is simple because the game is simple and abstract. But we can't use the rules for checkers to determine whether or not a character survives a fall from a 15' cliff, so we create different rules. And the more situations we expect the rules to adjudicate, the more rules-heavy they become. Each time we, as a community, complain to WOTC about a particular rule, we encourage their designers to add to the rules-set. So we end up with a situation in which most of us say we want rules-light systems, but we demand rules-heavy precision. Ironic, huh? BTW, just for myself, I define rules-light to mean I don't have to refer to the rules every time I play a game. Checkers, chess, Axis and Allies, bridge, poker, canasta, and other games fall under this heading. Rules-heavy systems require constant referencing. SFB, Third Reich, Champions, 3E, and almost all rpg's are in this group. Some are just not quite so rules-heavy as others. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Do you like rules-heavy systems?
Top