Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 2398193" data-attributes="member: 10201">Um, Fudge? It's got a bigger audience than Amber DRP, i'll wager (not that that's saying much). And, depending on where you put the threshhold, BRP and D6 System might both qualify--certainly, compared to D&D3E, they look awful light.Sorcerer's been in print for more than 5 years, hasn't it? Didn't Castle Falkenstein make it 5 years before RTG all but evaporated? Also, why does support matter? Part of what attracts me to rules-lite RPGs is precisely the lack of the supplement treadmill--i'm actually turned off by games with a stack of supplements. I want to buy an RPG, and play it, and never buy another book for that RPG ever again, and then play it some more. And i suspect i'm not alone. The desire for simplicity, rather than completeness, is likely to express as much in the desire for fewer books as in the desire for fewer rules.And surely, continued playability is a better judge than continued saleability. That is, if someone gets sick of a game after a few years, that's a problem. But if everybody who wants the game buys it--if you satisfy your market--is lack of further sales really an indictment of the quality of the game?But i think i agree with you: i think most people think of fairly crunchy systems when they hear the term 'rules lite'. Oh, i just thought of a way to make my point more clearly:If we rate crunchiness on a scale of 1 to 10, with, say, Risus and Over the Edge at about a 2 (yes, i can think of noticably less-crunchy RPGs), and, say, Phoenix Command or Albedo at about a 10, D&D3E would be somewhere in the 9 range. Cinematic Unisystem, Storyteller, and Fading Suns would all be around a 7. BRP (CoC, specifically) would be probably a 5. IOW, something like CoC might be right on the cusp of "rules-lite-ness", if the dividing point is the middle of the range. However, the fact that 95%+ of all RPGs ever commercially available, and an even larger percentage of sales, fall into the 6-9 range on the crunchiness scale really skews things. So, the median result might well be, say, 7.3. Thus, some see that as the logical split-point, and consider anything less crunchy to be on the "lite" side. But, IMHO, looking at the whole spectrum, and acknowledging that there are a ton more games on one side of the line [which is at 5.5] than the other is more useful.</blockquote>

Verification