How comprehensive do you want your RPG game system rules?

[Quasqueton]

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

 

[Mouseferatu]

I prefer systems that have an easily adaptable core system, which can be extrapolated to cover (more or less) everything.

IOW, the game doesn't need to give rules for every obscure action, but neither is it truly "coming up with rules on the fly," since even on-the-fly rules are easily enfolded in the core mechanic.

D20 could do that. I don't think it's there yet, though.

 

[thedungeondelver]

If the rules or supplements or changes are consistent and "fair" then I've got no problem with them, as long as they're explained outright and what impact on gameplay they're going to have is well explained. For example, a guy who DM's a RULES CYCLOPEDIA based D&D game prefers fireball spells don't expand. 2" diameter, and whatever hits the wall just doesn't push further outward. Thus you could be 2" away, fire one off down a 10' wide corridor, and be just fine. This was outlined beforehand, so now my magic-user doesn't try to "clean house" with tactical nuke strikes (so to speak).

If he hadn't mentioned this at all up to the point of the first time I used it, and then later decided that no, it works the way it does in AD&D and we'd baked ourselves, that'd be an arbitrary and unfair house rule.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I don't know that its entirely reasonable to expect every imaginable scenario to be covered by a specific rule... So what I'd like to see is most (or the most common) scenarios covered by some hard and fast rules, with clear guidelines on how to extrapolate into unknown territory.

Later
silver

 

[Psion]

I think that most common options that are expected to come up in a typical game should be given the benefit of forethought and codified.

I also believe the structure behind those rules should be self consistent and extensible, so you can easily handle the strange cases that don't get covered by the rules.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Well...I'm not sure my answer fits your question exactly, but lets see if I can explain what I prefer in a game nowadays (that had to go there since I didn't give a second thought about Basic D&D mechanics and the reasons for them..we simply played, and if something wasn't covered, we made something up, often under a lot of discussion, and had fun either way ).

I prefer a game to have one easy-to-remember mechanic for task resolution, ideally for ANY kind of task resolution, be it combat, social, knowledge, what have you. With that, I'd like a table or two that gives me a) basic DCs/TNs/Thresholds and b) the most common modifiers. b) can be replaced with a table grading modifiers for difficulty level.

Example 1: L5R (1E)
Easy to remember mechanics for any kind of task resolution, with built-in flexibility, one table for general TNs graded by difficulty, an easy to remember modifier mechanic that can be applied by GMs and players alike (through raises from the player), and you're set. Whenever I need something ruled, I can go with these few elements, and come up with a satisfying ruling on the quick, and without cracking a page, or a player throwing a quote to my head when I rule on the fly, and I still stay easily within the system as is. (Still have to crack pages for spell effects, though ...not playing it often enough by far to have them in my head, and my players get REALLY creative with the wide open descriptions sometimes. )

Basically, I like it when I can make a ruling on my own without having the books as a constant crutch, no matter how easy the rules are to find. I believe being able to come up with a good, quick but consistent, or at least fun-for-all ruling for something in-game is a skill a GM should cultivate, and for that he needs to be able to DO it in the first place, and be challenged to do it now and then. It's part of the fun I get out of being a GM, flexing my creativity a little to allow the players an action in the spotlight that isn't necessarily covered by the rules en detail. If I can make my players go "Cool!" by a quick ruling, that makes my day as GM. If it's all covered in the fine print already, it simply becomes an expected standard, and doesn't create grins so much as frowns when I choose to disallow it for an in-game reason.

And somehow, heated discussions over how to make an action possible in a given game system, even during game time, are more fun than heated discussions over why I still should allow some ability or gadget to work even if I clearly state why I won't, for this time. Weird, eh?

 

[jollyninja]

I like a fairly light rules set that makes it fairly obvious what the mechanics to determine any action will be. For example I really like how simple the WoD mechanic is, stat plus skill +/- other factors..... roll.

I don't need every action listed as long as the examples that are there give me a decent basis for figuring it out on the fly.

 

[Raloc]

In a perfect world (for me), every possible situation would have some rules for it (or, preferrably, a framework for extrapolating other parts of the game logically into the new area), any of which I might conceivably ignore or change if the fancy struck me (or it facilitated play better). I've never played the game in such a way that the RAW would be impermeable.

I do enjoy making rules myself, which is why I make many house rules IMCs.

 

[Stalker0]

I like rules to cover a lot of combat options, as that adds to the gaming experience for me. Social situations I want a basic rule set that works, and allows me to roleplay while still have a mechanical basis.

But mainly, I would like the rules to cover the very common things that happen in games. For example, the party watch. I would love a nice little table with basic spot/listen checks and percentages of random encounters for a person on watch. I can't remember the last game I played in with no party watch.

 

[Lanefan]

I voted '6', but that's where I'd like the system to be at before I sink me meat'ooks into it. By the time I'm done and the campaign's over, ideally it'd be at '10', as I'd have improvised to cover all the corner cases that came up during play (and then, I hope, been consistent in applying my improvisations when the same thing came up again).

Lane-"underdesigning and improvising since 1984"-fan