Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 6255076" data-attributes="member: 463">@OP - they both have their place. My general feeling is that rules heavy games have distinct advantages for long term play, where the 'meat' is on the player side. I have not found much use for systems that require a ton of work on the GM side just to be able to run a session. The attraction of rules-heavy GM-side stuff seems to be more for people who like fiddling with systems and making stuff as an end in itself, they may not even be GMing any games. Given how much a GM has to do, relatively light systems are always a plus in my book. So eg BECMI D&D's Dominion & War Machine mass battle rules always beat super-heavy-crunch domain & mass battle systems such as Fields of Blood by Green Ronin for 3e D&D. The relatively light starship design rules of Classic Traveller beat the insanely high-crunch Traveller: The New Era stuff.Whereas for many players a rules-heavy PC-side system such as 3e/PF and 4e/PF can support interest in playing over the long term. For players, light systems are much superior for pick-up, short-term, and one-off play, but heavy systems may be preferable for a years-long campaign. Certainly in recent years I've had mostly more luck at long terms games with the heavier systems. But I've also avoided joining games where I'd have to learn a complicated new system to play.Thinking a bit about genre and game design - if you are making a zombie apocalypse game, realistically it is likely to be used for short term play. It better be pretty light on the player side, and GM-side tools can be robust, but shouldn't be complicated. If you are making a space opera, fantasy, or super heroes game that you have geared to long term play, it can be more complicated, though accessibility is always a plus, so think about having a quickstart/beginner box type intro.</blockquote>

Verification