Homebrew, rules light, feedback requested.

[nijineko]

[h=2]To my chagrin....[/h]
...and despite my preferences for tactical and strategic elements in rp which tend towards a rules heavy environment, I have somehow invented a rules-lite system of role playing.


*A few moments of silence while I overcome my embarrassment, please*


So I thought I would ask here, as quite a few here prefer lightweight systems, what do you want to see (and definitely don't want to see) in a lightweight rule system?

Also, please consider how it might be possible to pull off the feat of applying tactical and strategic elements in four dimensions (and assuming that all participants/characters will be represented with some kind of a 2d and/or keyword referential framework) to a rules-lite system?

Thank you in advance for your comments.

 

[nijineko]

*crickets chirruping*

 

[steenan]

I play mostly rules-light systems, so I think I am quite qualified to answer your question.

What I want to see in a rules-light game?

1. Strong focus on fiction.
The rules need to tie to the fiction in such a way that they don't try to simulate it nor to replace it, but build on it. Use the understanding of the genre and the setting that players and the GM have.
For example, Fate's aspects are a direct connection to the fiction; they have no sense without it. Apocalypse World's moves always begin and end in fiction.

2. Clear idea of what the rules are to support.
You don't have a lot of rules and you trust your players to play in the genre, so you don't have to and shouldn't try to model everything by rules. Decide what your game is about and use rules that will push players in the direction you want to encourage.
For example, Fate's aspect give big bonuses compared to the dice spread, but you need to spend fate points for that and you gain the points by accepting compels (troubles for your character). This supports playing competent characters that have high-action dangerous adventures. In Monsterhearts you only have moves for manipulative and aggressive actions - this supports playing immature and emotionally troubled characters.

3. No "rule zero", "ruling not rules" and similar handwaving
If you don't want to put many rules in your game, only use rules that are essential for it - rules that must be followed or the game won't work as intended. In this case, you don't want any of the rules to be ignored or changed on the fly.

 

[nijineko]

I play mostly rules-light systems, so I think I am quite qualified to answer your question.

What I want to see in a rules-light game?

1. Strong focus on fiction.
The rules need to tie to the fiction in such a way that they don't try to simulate it nor to replace it, but build on it. Use the understanding of the genre and the setting that players and the GM have.
For example, Fate's aspects are a direct connection to the fiction; they have no sense without it. Apocalypse World's moves always begin and end in fiction.

2. Clear idea of what the rules are to support.
You don't have a lot of rules and you trust your players to play in the genre, so you don't have to and shouldn't try to model everything by rules. Decide what your game is about and use rules that will push players in the direction you want to encourage.
For example, Fate's aspect give big bonuses compared to the dice spread, but you need to spend fate points for that and you gain the points by accepting compels (troubles for your character). This supports playing competent characters that have high-action dangerous adventures. In Monsterhearts you only have moves for manipulative and aggressive actions - this supports playing immature and emotionally troubled characters.

3. No "rule zero", "ruling not rules" and similar handwaving
If you don't want to put many rules in your game, only use rules that are essential for it - rules that must be followed or the game won't work as intended. In this case, you don't want any of the rules to be ignored or changed on the fly.

Thank you for your reply.

1 = i am aiming at rules which explicitly encourage storytelling and mechanically award layered references, which should hopefully have the effect of focusing on the story being created.

2 = as mentioned in 1, storytelling is the primary focus. the rules for character focus on the traits those characters will use in the story, resolution uses a primary mechanic of storytelling to discover the result, with other mechanics available to break ties.

3 = amusingly enough, my game has a minor sub-theme of numerical binary, and as such, i was planning on starting with "chapter 0". in any case:

as to what i have so far, i have exactly three rules, which rules even combined are so simple it is actually a diceless system.

the first rule describes how to build a character with traits. the second rule describes how traits work. the third rule describes how to resolve conflicts.

without going into too much detail, characters are comprised of traits, the number of which and value range thereof can be limited in of several different fashions (if desired) to cap the overall power level of the players. traits consist of a value which determines how powerful it is and how many times it can be used in a given encounter. traits may synergize and possibly have limitations. conflict resolution is handled by a primary, secondary, tertiary resolution mechanic, where primary is a noetic challenge between the conflicting players, secondary is trait showdown, and tertiary is a tie-breaker mechanic.

I was also considering a fourth rule for the aforementioned "chapter 0" on how GM-ing should be conducted.

 

[nijineko]

Any other feedback?

 

[steenan]

You'd probably get more feedback if you wrote more about your game.

The question you asked is very general; there are a lot of various rules-light games and they can be very different from one another. So instead of asking what people expect, give us some meat and ask for feedback on that.

Also, make sure that you've read a reasonably wide range of games to have a base of reference and a source of ideas on what rules-light games can do and how. Fate Accelerated, Dungeon World, Fiasco, Capes, Dogs in the Vineyard and Polaris are what I suggest starting with.

 

[neobolts]

The character creation needs to sufficiently differentiate the PCs (in function, we're assuming the players will give them personality). A system tips too light when the PCs feel totally interchangable.

 

[nijineko]

The character creation needs to sufficiently differentiate the PCs (in function, we're assuming the players will give them personality). A system tips too light when the PCs feel totally interchangable.

here are some of my answers to questions elsewhere:

the conflict resolution mechanic?

well, it is a tertiary mechanic in order to provide a method of resolving deadlocks and ties to the primary method, noetic combat. i have been recently contemplating making it a quaternary mechanic so as to provide a greater focus on the purposed intent of the game - supporting storytelling.

noetic means "of the mind or intellect", it also has a connotation of exploring the mind or how the mind affects one's surroundings via non-traditional methods, which ties into the alpha version of the proposed campaign world/setting.

in any case, noetic combat is conflict resolution by storytelling. as previously mentioned, characters consist of traits. traits are one-word descriptions of what a character is. the definition of a given trait provides the guidance for how a trait may be used. in a conflict each participant picks a trait they will use to resolve it with. the player then describes the thoughts and intended actions of the character referencing the trait as often as possible without duplication of words or repetitious description. working in one or more references to other traits the character possesses is also acceptable. working in references to other stories (previous events in the game, movies, literature, real life, etc.,) or using said references to obliquely reference the trait is encouraged. each instance of a reference is worth a 'weight'. some references might be well layered, and be worth multiple weights. whomever's story has the most weight, "wins".

the secondary mechanic, trait showdown, only occurs if noetic combat ties or is unresolved. the tertiary tiebreaker only occurs if the previous two fail to resolve.

my hinted at forth mechanic would occur between the noetic combat and trait showdown, and would be a sub-set of noetic combat where the other characters in the game can add noetic weight to the side of their choice to tip the balance... and possibly gain some of the win benefit.


Tesral's concern, the 'best always wins' (assuming a numerical superiority idea) would not happen unless trait showdown occurred, where one chooses at what value the trait will be applied. (though, if you had some that were better at stringing words together than others, that could potentially cause imbalance in the game...)

Regarding the 4d request, yes I was speaking of space-time, but in a slightly more liberal fashion than implied, perhaps. I will need to be able to deal with situations where there will be multiple entities (animate, inanimate, otherwise) interacting from differently phased placements in space-time that are close enough to overlap and at least partly interact.

 

[nijineko]

i fully agree that characters need to be differentiated, very important in my view. any other feedback or comments?

 

[nijineko]

no other feedback or questions?