Does "rules light" lead to more arguments?

[Celebrim]

(I'm really curious how people would define the "heavyness" of OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e and 5e to be honest - it strikes me that they're all weighted (if you'll pardon the pun) in different directions, so it's not as simple a question as it might appear)

OD&D: Light
1e: Heavy, but with significant gaps in rules coverage compared to a modern rules set, leading to periods that could be described as 'rules light'.
BECMI: Light-ish. Not a true rules light system IMO (I'm not sure a Vancian magic system ever can be, since each spell is a rule set), but very close to being one.
2e: Heavy, but slightly less so than 1e, merging in some of BECMI's simplicity. Conversely, 2e begins the process of extending rules coverage.
3e: Heavy. Very mainstream attempt at a generic universal rules simulation, comparatively slimed down to fit with AD&D's mix of abstraction and process simulation.
4e: Heavy. Design feels abashed to me, with the most successful GMs seeming to take the game in directions that are not explicit in the text and tend to make the game more rules light.
5e: ???

 

[delericho]

(I'm really curious how people would define the "heavyness" of OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e and 5e to be honest - it strikes me that they're all weighted (if you'll pardon the pun) in different directions, so it's not as simple a question as it might appear)

Yeah, it's a really difficult question. In terms of sheer volume of rules material, 1st is considerably lighter than 2nd, which is lighter than 3e by some way.

On the other hand, 1st and 2nd Ed are made up of a cluster of sub-systems, where 3e and 4e are built on a core mechanic onto which a whole lot of 'stuff' has been layered. (And, if you're willing to ignore any 'stuff' that you're not using, then what you need to know is somewhat less.)

So, while 3e and 4e have considerably more weight to them, they're built on a foundation that makes them better able to bear that weight.

(Plus, of course, every edition except 1st started off a bit lighter than the previous one ended, and then added a whole lot more stuff, and weight, as it went. So, 3.0e on release day was lighter than 2nd Ed was when you added all the bells and whistles from the "Complete..." and "Player's Option" books, etc.)

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

The more rules the game presents the greater the expectation of all participants that the rules must be followed - and followed precisely for they are, after all, RULES. It may be anecdotal but I've always had far more arguments arise about rules conflicts, interpretation of written rules, disagreement with how rules work, and rules interfering with the ability to produce a preferable outcome in a given situation, etc. than with a system that has FEWER rules and relies more upon a DM who is authorized to make it up (and this is important) as he sees fit, not as the rules tell him it should/must be. There is still occasional disagreement with the DM's call but then the DM is free to change those circumstances without having to change the rules of the game itself.

 

[Balesir]

Imprecise rules are what require a lot of referee calls. Those are usually considered poor rule writing and a sign of bad game design. D&D has fortunately moved towards very precisely written rules.

I think howandwhy has nailed it, here: in my experience it's not "rules light" or "rules heavy" that promotes arguments - it's "rules sloppy".

Take a look at games like Robin Laws' Hillfolk, Dog Eared Designs' PrimeTime Adventures or Ramshead's Universalis. These are all "light" games in the sense that the rules are all in one small booklet, but the rules are in all cases explicit, complete and concrete. They don't call out to some kind of assumed uber-knowledge or so-called "common sense" - the rule is the rule. Simples.

On the other hand, we have had vanishingly few rules arguments about 4E (and not that many about 3.5, back in the day), and that is a decidedly rules heavy system. With another rules-heavy system, AD&D, on the other hand...

In short, if the basis of the rules is clear and laid out rather than assumed and dependent on some individual's world-model and prejudices, then there should be few "rules arguments". If, on the other hand, the rules basis is "this is just common sense, so make up rules to fit what you think should happen" the opposite is generally true.

 

[saskganesh]

Keep in mind that when OD&D was published, it was one of the heaviest rules sets ever published. It wasn't considered a light game.

 

[Weather Report]

1st is considerably lighter than 2nd

1st Ed is heavier than 2nd Ed.

 

[delericho]

1st Ed is heavier than 2nd Ed.

Not when you add all the bells and whistles. Between the "Complete..." books and the "Player's Options" stuff, there's a huge amount of material.

 

[Minigiant]

To me, arguments are not usually born of rules heaviness or lightness. They come from the different expectations of the games and from sloppy rules. Argument happen when what a gamer sees in their head and what the rules or dice say what happened don't match a few too many times.

 

[Grogg of the North]

"You want to jump on the counter, leap and grab at the chandolier, swing, flip, and land behind the enemy for a flanking position? Ok, roll a tumble check."

I try my best to do things like this.

I think that, as cliche as it sounds, it depends on the group. I've run with groups were doing something like swinging by the chandelier doesn't bat an eye. And I've played with groups were trying to do something like a chandelier swing resulted in me being stared at like I had three heads before someone finally said "Do you have any idea how many feats you need to do that?".

As long as everyone at the table understands what you're going for it shouldn't be a problem. I try to make it clear whenever I start a game that if no one at the table knows Rule X I'm just wing it and come back to it after the session to see if there was something more applicable. I hate bogging down a session going "Okay, it's not in the PHB ... what about the DMG? No? Hmm ... maybe it's in the appendix of the MM....." Being able to say something like "You're jumping onto the monster's back and attacking it? Roll to hit and give me a ride check." is, in my experience, more fun, interesting and rewarding.

I have had problems though. When I wanted to hand wave something only to be challenged by players because of whatever reason. My last campaign had this happen a lot from one player, to the point that it drained on everyone. That player eventually left the group and everyone had more fun.

 

[fjw70]

I can't really say. The groups I have been in just don't really argue about things. The one except to that was a brief 3.5 campaign I was in and I think that group would have argued no matter what edition or game was being played.