Rules heavy = bad; light = good

[Blackbrrd]

I really prefer what is referred to as rules heavy games. Like DnD. Actually, I am almost exclusively a DnD player. I have played: Basic, AD&D 2nd ed, 3e, 3.5 and 4e.

What makes it for me is the asymmetrical class design. 4e is kind of lacking in that respect with it's AEDU setup and the Wizard just doesn't have the same feel as one from the earlier editons.

If you look at computer games, it's a game like Starcraft that really shows how far you can go with an asymmetrical desgin. There are three races: Terran, Zerg and Protoss, with 10-15 different unit types each, and none of them are mirrors of each other. Each unit type has it's strengths and weaknesses. The game is easy to play, but really, really hard to get good at, the depth of understanding goes on for several levels as you learn it.

The reason I brought it up is that I think there is a misconception that a game needs to have symmetrical design to be balanced. They tried that with 4e, to make it "lighter", but instead added on so many options in character creation, that it's overwhelming to new players (if you give them all the options, like through the character builder).

Now, you can have complexity (detail) in other areas that I find just annoying. For instance percentage based systems. Most people I know have no problem adding 4 and 7 together, but if you ask them to add 44 and 79 together, they are going to run into problems*. It's something that slows down the game needlessly. If you have 4 in a stat or 44 doesn't really matter if you roll a d10 instead of a d100.

Other examples are systems which relies on bunches of dice to settle an outcome. A 20d6 meteor swarm being a good example. Why not just 56+4d6? This is something that really slowed down my last (and only) d&d 3.5 game which had five full casters (the campaign run to a stand-still around level 18).

What I really like is character changing choices. For instance: I don't use spell points for my spells, I use health! Or: I can't dodge attacks, but get 50% damage resistance. I don't like a bazillion skills that are applied in the exact same way, and the only thing I can do is add another of these skills or increase my chance of success in one of those.

Dnd's spells (or Powers in 4e) is quite character changing. The mechanics are a bit fiddley, and the decision for all to have AEDU, instead of the earlier at-will / daily divide really made the characters less unique. I prefer the very squishy pre-3e casters and the versatility that they had in every edition except 4e.

I prefer playing DnD 3.5 around level 4-8, which I think is a sweat spot with no save-or-die and good balance between casters and the other characters. My current group really likes the level grind though, so I am currently playing 4e.

*I don't have this problem, but then I used an algorithm to calculate the square root of 5 to three digits when I was 14 because I got bored looking at a play at school

 

[Blackbrrd]

My previous post got a bit rambling and DnD focused, so here's a more general one. I like bounded accuracy. I have never seen it in play, but I believe it's a good thing.

I like leveling. I don't want my skills/abilities/spells to increase, I want to be able to do new things firstly. Getting a new power that lets me pick-pocket somebody when being watched is more fun than getting +3% to basketweaving. It might be less useful or optimized, but it's just more fun.

In other words, I prefer games where the leveling doesn't just get me to be better at something specific, but let's me bend the result of something. Kind of like how James Bond does things that just shouldn't be possible.

In other words, I am quite sure I end up in the rules heavy camp. I think the game can be light to run anyway, but that depends more on the resolution mechanics in my opinion. Rolemaster (anno 2001) is the exact opposite of what I want of a game system in that regard.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

As time goes on I find that I prefer rules on the medium to lighter end, along with generic systems (like Savage Worlds).

I don't dislike rules-heavy games (been playing them for decades), but if they are going to be big ones, I prefer the "heaviness" to be on being able to make a complex character, rather than on combat mechanics.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

... if they are going to be big ones, I prefer the "heaviness" to be on being able to make a complex character, rather than on combat mechanics.

Yes, this.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I find a lot of people declare systems rules heavy that actually aren't.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

I find a lot of people declare systems rules heavy that actually aren't.

It all depends on your definition of the term "rules heavy."

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I find a lot of people declare systems rules heavy that actually aren't.

A lot of people lack any experience with truly rules-heavy games, and judge based on what they are familiar with. Ie, from a D&D(ish) only perspective, they might say that Pathfinder is super-heavy, and BECMI is really light.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Unfortunately, some manufacturers actually encouraged this. A lot of games I might have thought complicated before I learned them, are, in my experience actually easier than (A)D&D 2-3.x. That said, in some versions of Rolemaster it isn't that the rules are actually hard it's that finding the rule you need to look at is hard, the rules for character creation were all over the place with no apparent rhyme or reason in RMSS's main book. I have no idea what it looks like in Rolemaster United.

My real objection is when people see a rule (or a few of them) that actually are complicated, and declare the entire system rules-heavy because of one (or a few) special cases. I like World Tree, and consider it rules-medium. At its basic, it's rules light, and only gets complicated where it needs to, in my opinion. On the other hand, I have a copy of BTRC's Timelords which went so out of its way to be realistic in its rules that it's virtually unplayable by the original rules. In my opinions, naturally.

 

[steenan]

The way I see it, there is several factors that, together, make a game rules-heavy.

The first is the number of interacting pieces on the character sheet. The more things need to be calculated from other things, or are only made available by other things, or strongly depend on other things in their usefulness, the more work is necessary in character creation and character advancement. A game can have a lot of information on the character sheet and still be, at worst, rules-medium if there are few if any interdependencies.

For example, there is significantly more numbers on a beginning character sheet in CoC than in D&D 3e. But in CoC, nearly all of them are skills that work by themselves, while in D&D 3e most values are calculated from other things.

And, of course, it can get even worse if the character creation process isn't written clearly and in the correct order, so you learn at a later stage that you need something from the previous stage that you didn't know when making the earlier choices. All versions of WoD are guilty of this - you select supernatural powers after assigning attributes and skills, but the powers often depend on specific attributes and skills, so you need to go back and make changes to make them useful.



The second part of rule-heaviness is the use of lists. Choosing one of a few things, assigning priorities or distributing points among a small number of categories is fast and easy to understand. Choosing from long lists of items is time consuming. Long lists of items, each with its own specific rules, make the choices hard, because comparing the items is difficult.

Dungeon World is a perfect example of rules-lightness here. Everything one needs to choose from, during character creation and advancement, is on the character sheet; no decision point during character creation has more than a few options. In contrast, D&D 4e - also a fun game - forces a player to browse lists of powers and feats that are quite long in core only, and truly enormous if more books are in use.

Freeform items, like Fate aspects, are a strange case here. On one hand, they flow directly from character concept and require no list browsing. On the other, they can be time consuming when a player is not in a creative mood, and they require some system familiarity to make both fun and fully useful.



Then comes the third part of rules-heaviness, that is, how many rules are typically used in game, and when. Two games may have the same amount of rule text, but one of them requires you to use most of them during typical play, while the other gives rules for more areas, some of them rarely used. The second game is rules-lighter, though probably worse designed.

Also, each game leaves some areas as "player decides" or "GM decides", and gives rules for others. If it clearly communicates how it is to be played and the rules are consistent with it, great. If not, players expect the rules to resolve things they weren't designed for (which often leads to conflicts and rules disputes) and use rules to resolve things when they don't really need it (which leads to wasted time and teaches players to ignore the rules).

A well made rules-light game is very specific in what its rules resolve. Ignoring it will break the game. For example, expecting Fate or Dungeon World to simulate how the setting works, is a recipe for disaster. A well made rules-heavy game has rules that interact in balanced way, while being clear in how they work. Resolution of typical situations is interesting, but reasonably quick. Ignoring rules or changing them on the fly in such game makes it significantly worse, because it disturbs a fine-tuned system.

A poorly made rules-light game has a few mechanical pieces and no guidelines on what exactly to use them for. It effectively becomes a freeform with rules that players or a GM engage when they feel like it, leading to chaos. A poorly made rules-heavy game is confusing. It uses layers of rules that don't really resolve anything, because they hinge on an arbitrary decision of some participant (typically the GM). They have a lot of things that are made possible by the rules, but shouldn't be used in game (underpowered, overpowered, not fitting the genre), thus making the rules undependable.

 

[Balesir]

Then comes the third part of rules-heaviness, that is, how many rules are typically used in game, and when. Two games may have the same amount of rule text, but one of them requires you to use most of them during typical play, while the other gives rules for more areas, some of them rarely used. The second game is rules-lighter, though probably worse designed.

Also, each game leaves some areas as "player decides" or "GM decides", and gives rules for others. If it clearly communicates how it is to be played and the rules are consistent with it, great. If not, players expect the rules to resolve things they weren't designed for (which often leads to conflicts and rules disputes) and use rules to resolve things when they don't really need it (which leads to wasted time and teaches players to ignore the rules).

A well made rules-light game is very specific in what its rules resolve. Ignoring it will break the game. For example, expecting Fate or Dungeon World to simulate how the setting works, is a recipe for disaster. A well made rules-heavy game has rules that interact in balanced way, while being clear in how they work. Resolution of typical situations is interesting, but reasonably quick. Ignoring rules or changing them on the fly in such game makes it significantly worse, because it disturbs a fine-tuned system.

A poorly made rules-light game has a few mechanical pieces and no guidelines on what exactly to use them for. It effectively becomes a freeform with rules that players or a GM engage when they feel like it, leading to chaos. A poorly made rules-heavy game is confusing. It uses layers of rules that don't really resolve anything, because they hinge on an arbitrary decision of some participant (typically the GM). They have a lot of things that are made possible by the rules, but shouldn't be used in game (underpowered, overpowered, not fitting the genre), thus making the rules undependable.

I'm quoting this part of steenan's post because it's the reax crux of the matter, to me. We talk of "rules light" and "rules heavy", and I think there is often an unstated assumption that rules-light = loosey-goosey rulings-not-rules based and rules-heavy is the opposite. My experience suggests to me that this is a very long way from being true.

I think my key criterion in discriminating "good" rule sets from "bad" rule sets are clarity and lack of ambiguity. If a rule set is clear and unambiguous, I can forgive some clunkiness and I'll be pretty neutral about whether it has a lot of rules or just a few.

Rules light games can be clear and unambiguous. Check 3:16, Primetime Adventures, FATE or Universalis for example. They may have game events decided by judgement calls, but they are clear about who makes the call, when they make the call, what the criteria are that they have to satisfy in making those calls and what their aim should be in making their judgements. The rules are short and simple, but there is no room whatever for ambiguity or argument over interpretation.

Likewise, rules heavy games can be clear and unambiguous: D&D 4E is perhaps my favourite example in this regard, but Runequest and Traveller don't do a bad job and DragonQuest is very fine, also.

The games that are ambiguous and unclear I shell decline from listing - let's just say that would go on and on for ever... But both "rules-light" and "rules-heavy" games would make the list.