How comprehensive do you want your RPG game system rules?

[Arashi Ravenblade]

I said 10. Though I think it's a little impossible to do every conceivable action. I do think that d20 does a good job at laying the foundation for it. If player A wants to do X, it's a pretty good assumption that that player rolls 1d20+various modifiers.

Something I think WOTC ought to do or maybe even some of us here on Enworld is to have the Moderators come up with a Sticky thread on the House rules board for those of us who come up with rules for something thats not already covered in the rules, not alterante rules mind you but new ones.

 

[MonsterMash]

I like to create rulings for things not covered by the rules (come to think of it I like to change the RAW too). One of my favourite games for this is C&C where the Siege Engine allows a situation to be resolved, but withou a heap of detailed rules just the GM needing to decide how hard it is and what ability it maps to.

 

[Umbran]

Sorry, but I don't have one answer. How comprehensive I want my rules depends on what kind of flavor I'm looking for in the game. Sometimes comphrehensive is good. Sometimes freeform is good.

 

[RFisher]

“The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don’t need any rules.” —Gary Gygax

For me, rules are crutches. My reliance on them is a weakness.

I want a game's rules to focus on the area that is the highlight of that game. Leave everything else to the judgement of the judge. More or less.

It always seemed odd to me that Ars Magica had one of the more complex combat systems. Not that I think it shouldn't have had a combat system, as combat is an important part of the game, IMHO. Just that the complexity of combat seemed out-of-line with its importance to the game. But perhaps it was meant to be more important that I thought.

The virtues & passions in Pendragon are perfect for it, but would be out-of-place in most other games.

 

[Li Shenron]

How “complete” do you prefer your role playing game systems? Do you like coming up with rules on your own, or do you want the game system to already have it all figured out for you?

For this poll, assume that the written rules are either easy to remember or easy to find (or both); they are balanced enough, and work effectively. (I realize this may be purely a theoretical game system ;-)

For instance, if there is a rule for some obscure, abstract, rare action, it is as easy to remember/find as the rule for the most common action. (Training a pet is as easy to remember/find as attacking with a common weapon.)

What I’m trying to see with this poll is: Do people *like* coming up with their own rules for the games they are playing?

Quasqueton

The best answer I can find is:

Just as many rules as are already covered by the PHB and DMG
PLUS
huge listing reference DCs for each skill

 

[Wombat]

I'll take the midrange, about a 5 on this scale.

I end up altering almost every single system I own simply because I try very, very hard to fit the system to the setting, rather than the other way around; as such, I want solid core mechanics, but most of the fiddly bits can fall by the wayside with ease, especially if they are in areas I am less worried about for the given setting.

 

[howandwhy99]

The question asked is nearly impossible to answer for me. I like complexity to just scale up whenever necessary. However, to play the game quickly I also need the rules to be very simple and get out of the way with as few rolls as possible (Zero being the best way).

I like that d20 has a unified mechanic, but it's not my ideal. Like many of the 100% percentile games in the 80's that were chock full of options and rules it attempts too much with only one mechanic. Nor is it easy to ignore large portions of the rules.

Organic rulesets with a slight mix of unified rulesets is probably the ideal for me currently. Accurate rule representations that easily scale in simple terms, but also represent organically the task at hand in the most accurate means math allows. It's not easy, but I think it is doable.

 

[hamishspence]

I like fairly comprehensive. But I can rule on the fly a bit too.

DMG has a few On The Fly suggestions: Combine Use rope Check with charge to get swinging charge, and so on. Circumstance modifiers. I see the game as revolving round the PC's and think the DM's job is to reward the PC's for quirky ideas by ruling them in, for example, allowing a success on Perform to provide a small +2 bonus to Diplomacy or Gather Information checks in the same place.

 

[3d6]

I'm not sure how to vote. My current system of choice is a modified version of microlited20, which has rules for most actions, but the rule is almost always "roll a skill check, if you beat the DC you succeed". Essentially, the rules are comprehensive, but not detailed. Is that towards the high or low end of the scale?

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I'm not sure how to vote. My current system of choice is a modified version of microlited20, which has rules for most actions, but the rule is almost always "roll a skill check, if you beat the DC you succeed". Essentially, the rules are comprehensive, but not detailed. Is that towards the high or low end of the scale?

Extremely high, as I voted. Probably a 9 or 10 if the mechanic is universal.