Rule-lite or Rule-heavy describe THE perfect ideal ruleset

[Evilboy]

I'd actually want multiple rulesets, as I don't think you can use one ruleset to run every gametype. Some rules are great for realistic character design, some are better for epic adventures, etc.

What I look for overall in a rules set is balance and character customization, with quick combat resolution being important but not as critical as the first two. I don't want one class or strategy to overwhelm a campaign, and I want a character creation system that allows both for archtypical characters and more customized characters while still maintaining some balance between the two.

I'm pretty happy with 3.5 D&D, my only big complaint is that multiclassing caster classes with any non-caster class (or non-caster PrC) generally destroyers a character, power-wise.

I also run Spycraft (lots of fun, but horrific rules in some regards, particularly regarding vehichle damage) and Vampire (also fun, but aggravatingly vague rules and very poorly balanced).

Basically, I dig the innovate inventory approach of Spycraft, the open character design of Vampire, and the well-balanced and quick rules of 3.5 D&D. Of all those systems, I think I prefer D&D the most, it's the most balanced and easiest to modify without overhauling the entire system thanks to the d20 mechanic.

 

[Silverleaf]

Still - all these Rules lite vs Rules heavy threads are - IMO - bitch sessions aimed at a pro-con D&D discussion in disguise.

Not quite, at least not from my perspective. I like D&D a lot, it's even my favorite all-time FRPG. But when I say that, I'm referring to the original rules up to and including the '81 Basic/Expert sets (with possible inclusion of some of Mentzer's stuff as well). After that, things started getting out of hand, and the game lost touch with its roots more and more.
I don't like AD&D that much, neither 1e or 2e. And I like 3e even less, since it even further departed from the game I known and love. Keep in mind I'm talking holistically here, I do like some individual aspects of AD&D and d20.
Anyway, over the years the class archetypes have become more and more diluted in favor of a system of detailed mechanical options. One's ability to roleplay within the confines of a strong archetype has been replaced with gobs and gobs of rules that provide detail, at the expense of greater complexity. At first, more classes were added and given their own distinct mechanics. Spells, monsters and combat were given much more detail and procedures. People were advised that following the Official Rules was the correct and only way to play D&D. A skill system was introduced, albeit as an option. Not content with more classes, an entire series of "kits" books were published, in order to make sure each and every PC could be mechanically different even if they all played the same class. Then another skill system was introduced, but this time it was made mandatory, along with its twin sister feat system, and these two became intertwined in every single aspect of the game, from combat to monsters to spells...
Of course, the page count of the rulebooks has increased dramatically because of this. A game that once could fit in three small pamphlet-size books (1974) or even two 64-page books (1981) has now ballooned up to nearly 1000 pages, for just the core rules.
I'm in this purely for the imagination, the fantasy. I'd rather not spend a lot of time thinking about rules or trying to run some kind of detailed simulation in my head. I'd much rather use a computer for that sort of thing. But that is what D&D has become, and that's why I still play an old edition that hands the reigns squarely over to the DM & players.

 

[greywulf]

Uho. We'd better be careful now and back off or Steel_Wind will say "I told you so"

Every game system has it's pros and cons, and D&D is no exception of course. What's fun is that one person's disadvantage may the exactly the thing that someone else loves - be it feats, the skill system, the way magic scales or whatever. I kinda find that genki, so that's ok.

It's it's broke, we can fix it too, and that's terrific as well.

So no, I've no complaints about D&D as such, because all I'd really be complaining about is my own laziness about mending it

On to the main thrust of the thread though, and I reckon both Dragonblade and A'koss have it on the head. Both your posts have given me masses of food for thought, and I thank you for that.

I'm still on the fence regarding multi-genre rules. They're the Holy Grail of game designers, it seems , and I'm not really sure what the actual benefits of them are to the gamer. IMHO, the grandaddy of multi-genre gaming, GURPS, failed because no matter what era you played, it still felt like GURPS. Ideally, the rules should just fade into the background, be invisible. HERO manages it, very well though, and I'm pretty sure that d20 could do it too, but........

d20 has gone from being multi-genre to just plain fragmented, which is a shame. There's too many different rules for the same thing across all of the game books, and that just adds to inconsistency and confusion. Sure I could pull my Half-Elven Bard into modern times, but I'd have a little conversion to do regards Defense and Action Points first. Not a lot, granted, but the differences shouldn't be there in the first place.

I know the reason though, and it's a good one - the game is evolving, and that's excting. Each book aims to refine the core mechanics, make them better than what's gone before. Sometimes, the changes work (Call of Cthulhu's beautifully svelt character generation system), sometimes fall flat on their face (d20 Modern's abstract and pointless character generation system). That's good to. I like proving grounds.

I'd love 4th Edition Open d20 to be the best darned game out there. I believe in D&D for all it's many strengths and few weaknesses. Tweaking this thread a little, I'd like 4E to contain:

- Action Points. I love 'em
- The core classes, plus the generic classes from Complete Adventurer as a DM optional extra
- Defense instead of AC. AC should go the way of THAC0 and be put to pasturte
- A single book containing char gen, combat, magic, monsters and basic DM rules. I regret that 3.5E didn't have the handful of GM pages at the back like the 3E PHB did.
- Less reliance on miniatures and battlemats, more emphasis on imagination as a tool. I want role-play, not a boardgame
- Make everything a feat. All special abilities, all class abilities, the works. That'll simplify the position we're in now, where class abilities are feats by another name anyway.
- Every class gets special abilities throughout their level progression. We're prettu much there on this one now.
- Make AoE optional in a sidebar. That's where it belongs. We wouldn't need miniatures without AoE, so we wouldn't need 20 pages of text explaining how to use miniatures. Get rid, put it in a 4E Miniatures Handbook or something.

And the biggest change of all - make D&D the brand truely cross genre. Put the rules in the one book for all eras of play. Give the core classes 'era focus' so a modern Rogue has one skill list, a fantasy one another. I'm pretty darned sure all of the core classes work in any era (Bard = Info Junkie/Journalist/Musician, Paladin = Action Hero, etc). The class abilities might change a little, but probably by less than is necessary. I don't want to play a Smart/Fast/Tough Hero. I want to play a Fighter!

Of course, that'll mean a lot of rules in one book, so something will have to give. The PHB contains a LOT of text that's just there to explain the exceptions to the rules, which is necessary for newcomers to the game, rules-junkies and the just plain lazy. The Combat rules can fit on 8 pages of clearly written text (especially without the miniatures and AoE stuff). Character generation in perhaps 30, DM stuff in 10, Monsters in around 20. The original D&D Cyclopedia prove it can be done, and wonderfully so.

So yes, I love 3.5E, very much. Doesn't stop me dreaming about 4E though!

 

[Geron Raveneye]

The aspects I prefer from a ruleset for a roleplaying game...hmmm, lets see if I can break it down by keywords.

Archetypes: Archetypes are good in that they provide a firm concept a player can wrap his mind around easily and run with it for as long as he wants. So yes, I like archetypes, or classes. A class-based system makes character creation faster, on the average, too, because a player doesn't have to decide on what he wants his character to look like character point by character point, but can take a package as a base.

Customization: Being able to customize a class/archetype so the result will stand out from others of the same class is a damn nice feature. But I'd love it if the designers chose to stick to one set of tools, and worked with them, instead of inventing more and more new ways of customization. When I first read D&D 3E, I loved the thought of feats and a fixed skill system. The fact that there were only so many feats and skill points made it a part of the class, not an overpowering factor. Prestige classes were a cool concept if a DM chose to allow them, and the streamlined multiclassing rules were just plain great. Now, after 5 years, seeing the glut of additional options to customize a character, with the last being racial replacement levels or whatever they are called, I've got the impression people are simply spending more of their time modifying a character than actually playing it. As I say, just my impression, but I don't want a "Pimp My PC" game. One robust system of customization, and stick with it.

Rules simplicity: D&D is simple. Roll a d20, add and subtract modifiers, and compare to DC. Done. I'd still prefer it being "all modifiers stack" or "modifiers overlap", for the simple reason that it would be much less bookkeeping, and would be less of a temptation for game designers to invent just another kind of bonus so their boni stack with everything else too. Case in point: Green Ronin's Psychic's Handbook. Psychic boni all over the place, where you could have worked with deflection boni, or other already established ones. But no, then they wouldn't stack, so there has to be a new kind. An "all boni stack" rule works across the table after all, for PCs and NPCs, so it would even out in the end, too. And mean less bookkeeping. All that would be necessary is an adjustment in DC calculation.

Rules detail: Do we need a specific rule for every kind of detail that could happen during a game? Or could we do with a more general set of rules that gives the DM a firm grip on how to adjudicate situations and how to calculate a quick DC that is fairly consistent without having to check a table in the skill description, check how that is modified by a feat or spell effect, and then wonder why the other players are busy counting Doritos? I'm in favour for a rules system that doesn't try to cover every tiny detail out of the box, but gives a DM a strong support in learning how to tackle most situations with the included general ruleset, and how to stay consistent with those decisions. No more discussions that include arguments like "No you can't do that, it doesn't say so in the description, and the description includes everything you can do with that, so if it's not there, you can't do it." Give players and DMs a little more room for creativity, please, and the rules to support it.

Multi-genre rules: No thanks. I'm one of those weird geezers who firmly believes that every game is fitting for the style of play it was invented for. Sure, there are grey shades around it, but if I want to play L5R, I'll use the d10 rules, because they fit much better, and if I want to play Shadowrun, I'll reach for my d6 dicebag. D&D was created with a certain kind of game in mind, and it does that one best. Yes, I like the flexibility d20 has brought to it, the different magic systems, the choices I have in campaign worlds, etc. I don't play d20 Modern, Supers, Ancient Times or Future, and I don't know how they work, but I say if you want to represent another genre with D&D, just don't. D&D is fantasy, and works best within those confines, because that's what it was made for.
As a sidenote, I'm consciously separating D&D a bit from d20, in case it didn't come over so far.

Modularity/Options: I love options. As long as they don't float in a vacuum. I love prestige classes, as long as they have a good background description. I love different magic systems, as long as they fit with some part of the game world, or another. I hate options that are simply tacked on to sell more books. Especially redundant options that could have been taken from another source, but had to be redone to put another twist on the same principle. Same goes for new base classes that are there just for the sake of being different. If you got a campaign world, by all means, adapt the current stuff to the flavour, and add some fitting options, but don't just throw out silly feats, prestige classes or new customizing rules for the laugh of it. And while we're at it, label the stuff clearly as options. And clearly state that the inclusion in any game is a matter of DM approval, not the WotC stamp of approval.

I think that covers some of the bases, even if I don't know how understandable it is. I hope you'll forgive me if it's just all rambling to you.

 

[greywulf]

Raveneye, rambling is good, especially when the ramlbe makes as much sense as yours did. Thank you!

Sounds to me like we're reaching a point where what we're after is pretty much d20 with a slightly lighter, more consistent rules set, an acceptance the the GM and players are intelligent enough to work things out for themselves, and enough flexibility to adapt to their rules needs.

Sounds good to me!

 

[GlassJaw]

Grim Tales still captures most of the core elements of what I'm looking for in an ideal ruleset (and also what many people have mentioned in this thread):

- Generic classes: Each character is highly customizable and the class system allows for the creation of any archtype. With this class system, there is virtually no need to create new core classes, PrC's, or advanced classes. And if there is an ability that is not covered, it usually just means the creation of a new talent or talent tree. If you can think it, you can build it.

- Action points: the best AP system I've seen yet.

- Customizable ruleset: The GM can tailor certain aspects of the rules to alter the lethality of the campaign world.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I'll chime to say that I think the d20 base modularity makes it extremely useful for all sorts of things.

I think I'll say I'm one of those people that Rules Lite or Rules Heavy are really aspects of what the game is supposed to feel like. There are certain games I'd run with True20 and certain games I wouldn't. I have a gut-feeling that I wouldn't like True20 for a "Gritty Crime Drama" game. It's just too ... flat. But I wouldn't like GrimTales/Blood'n'Vigilance for a 4-color supers game. I WOULD like those rules (more involved, more specific) for a gritty low-supers game.

I like having game system options. I ALSO like having a core system mechanic that crosses genres and systems. I can teach True20 to somebody that plays D&D very easily. I can teach Grim Tales to somebody that plays True20 easily as well.

I think my FAVORITE ALL TIME system would be Grim Tales + True20 laid out with Ben's brilliant little idea of rating the lethality (and I would include COMPLEXITY) of each ... step of resolution. It's like the "Posterize" task in Photoshop (I know alot of you don't use photoshop, so I'll explain.)

Tru20 is broad shapes. Simple, fast to see, quick to conceptualize. It's the broad posterized shapes ... a face is a plane with circles for eyes and a line for the mouth, etc. Skills are tracked simply at "max ranks", damage is static, survival is a single roll. But there are fewer fine motor skills ... you can't spread out your skills to be okay in many things and grand in nothing ... a gun is a gun is a gun.

From there we move up, gaining resolution with each step ... from damage saves to hit points, from hit points to Massive Damage Saves, from MDT to specifics of MD thresholds and saving throws. From "Gun +4" to "Glock 9mm 2d6" to "Specific ballistics of this round suggest an improved linear system of 1d10+2". From "Known Skills" to "Skill Tiers" to "Skill Points". From "Skills, Pick 6" to "Class Skills" to "Pick 3 background, 3 occupational, and 3 choice, modified by class".

I would like it if True20 and Grim Tales were more mutually-inclusive ... it's stuff like "Is Armor DR or AC" that cause big problems. If I could move from "Light Mail +4 Toughness" to "Light Mail 4 Damage Conversion", that would be great. But the Fewer Dead Heroes conversion mechanic, while wonderfully elegant, is still in the realm of "Armor = AC" ... have to figure out something there. If I could maintain True20's elegant "Combat Bonus" which applies to Attack AND Defense ... that would be nice as well.

I'm not sure if I want to keep "Talents" and "Feats" or roll them all into "Feats". I LIKE the further-divisioned "Six Base Classes" as opposed to the "Roles" of True20. I think there are too many problems and too much button-holing going on with True20 as it is to make it truly "generic". It carries its fantasy-role-play roots too firmly in its core balancing mechanic, while the six base classes have enough give and take that you can totally remove "FX" from a game and keep them all viable, or set it Past/Modern/Future and have all of the classes viable. I, therefore, think an integrated mechanic to make Tough heroes tougher even at the "Damage Save" level would be needed.

I think what I've seen of the 6-generic-classes system has sold me on it as "Archetypal" enough to speed up character generation and "Flexible" enough to encompass ANY character concept imaginable. Pure point-buy is very slow and hard to teach, total archetypes are hard to wrangle outside of their defined boundaries.

That's my current rambling thought.

--fje

 

[der_kluge]

I have some ideas on what I think would make a great system. I'd even considered putting them together into a pdf and giving it away.

Essentially, what I want is extreme flexibility and customization on the character creation side, mixed with a simplifed, consistent resolution system. I also want something that controls the power curve

I haven't decided if this is closer to HARP, or more like D&D in terms of a power curve. I love the power curve in HARP (extremely lethal, extremely realistic), but I can also appreciate the power curve in something like C&C.

Where I think C&C fails is some of the oddities they have like the varied XP charts, lack of multi-classing, and spellcasters are extremely weak at low level, and the weird resolution mechanic that it has in place. It could be simpler. (as a side note, I'm reading through C&C right now, and will be reviewing it soon, so look for that).

I love HARP's character creation system. With it, I can create *exactly* the character I want, and I get absolutely no extra stuff I don't want. I also love the spellcasting system. I just wish it had a more D&D-like combat system (no tables, easy resolution, the use of miniatures), and maybe a slightly higher power curve.

To that end, what I'd like to create is something like a "Buy the numbers" style character creation system, and a more flexible skill-based magic system, with a lot more customizations.

 

[Rasyr]

I love HARP's character creation system. With it, I can create *exactly* the character I want, and I get absolutely no extra stuff I don't want. I also love the spellcasting system.

AWww.. gee... thanks for the kind words..

I just wish it had a more D&D-like combat system (no tables, easy resolution, the use of miniatures), and maybe a slightly higher power curve.

Hmm.... I'll see if I can come up with something for you and publish it in a future HARPer's Bazaar. I may even ask you to playtest it for me as well.

 

[GlassJaw]

Essentially, what I want is extreme flexibility and customization on the character creation side, mixed with a simplifed, consistent resolution system. I also want something that controls the power curve

Honestly, this (and everything else in your post) is exactly what Grim Tales provides.