Rules Heavy v. Rules Light experiment - is it feasible?

[der_kluge]

This brings up an interesting point. If a 3rd edition DM constantly fudges a resolution on the fly, and doesn't look up the official ruling on whatever esoteric point it is he's "hand-waving", is he really playing 3rd edition D&D?

At what point does a game of 3rd edition become something else the more and more rules are "hand-waved" or rules are house-ruled on the fly?

 

[fredramsey]

The whole idea is so subjective, any measurement you could make would be next to meaningless.

So to answer the original question: No.

 

[Gentlegamer]

"Handling time" doesn't take into account that a rules-light system doesn't even give answers for the same questions as a rules-heavy system, and I think this is a fundemental difference between the two.

I can create a rules-light system that says "flip a coin, and if you get heads, you solve the dungeon, tails, you die. The DM can add flavor text as appropriate." Clearly this system beats any RPG on the market (I hope) in terms of speed.

It's not clear to me what hypothesis is really being tested by the test being proposed.

That system was already created: the d02 System. You just have to write "Solving the dungeon" as a skill on your character sheet.

 

[Ourph]

"Handling time" doesn't take into account that a rules-light system doesn't even give answers for the same questions as a rules-heavy system, and I think this is a fundemental difference between the two.

I can create a rules-light system that says "flip a coin, and if you get heads, you solve the dungeon, tails, you die. The DM can add flavor text as appropriate." Clearly this system beats any RPG on the market (I hope) in terms of speed.

Right, this system would have very low handling time. Example:

DM: "There's a pit in front of you."
Player: "I want to jump the pit."
DM: "Let's see what the rules say about how to resolve that." [Start timer for Handling Time. DM reads two sentence rules document.] "You need to flip a coin." [Stop timer on 4 seconds].
Player: "It came up heads."
DM: "You jump the pit, solve the dungeon and get lots of treasure. You're cool."
Player: "Oh wait! I made a mistake. It was tails."
DM: "You fell in the pit and died. You're a big loser."

Game session ends. Total average "Handling Time" = 4 seconds.

 

[der_kluge]

I can create a rules-light system that says "flip a coin, and if you get heads, you solve the dungeon, tails, you die. The DM can add flavor text as appropriate." Clearly this system beats any RPG on the market (I hope) in terms of speed.

Yes, but can I create a dex-based fighter?

 

[fredramsey]

Yes, but can I create a dex-based fighter?

Yep. And when heads comes up, the GM will say, "You easily make it over the pit, doing a flip at the end. The Orcs hold up score cards. You average a 9.7."

And if tails comes up, "You make it over the pit, and stand there looking proud, having made it look easy. But the edge crumbles away, and you fall in."

 

[BluSponge]

what was the system that had a possible death during character creation?

Traveller

 

[nothing to see here]

I don't even think that's a valid measure. Handling time is pointless if you acheive a result that leaves me dubious or wondering if the GM is playing favorites or feeling like I am being railroaded or shatters my SOD in half the time.

Of course I receognize that my sensitivity to these issues differs from others. But that's why you can't really make a case about "betterness" that holds any validity outside a group of players with similar tastes and values.

You're right...The simple fact is -- if we want to create some sort of half-way objective ranking system for RPG complexity, PLAY EXPERIENCE CANNOT BE USED AS A DEFINITION. It's counter-intuitive, but true. Play experience is what you use to measure different systems...not define them.

Which brings us back to the first debate...you take any three systems...hold the core bokks in your hands...how do you define them in terms of rules complexity.

Here are some starting ideas:

1) Number of independant, rules dependant components of character creation: (For example D&D 3.5 has now fewer than 7... Abilities/Race/Class/Skills/Feats/Equipment/Class features(spells).

2) Number of Core Action combinations available during an 'action' (in combat)

3) The number of 'fluid' variables (i.e. HP) that require tracking during a game siting.

4) The number of steps/dice rolled to resolve an attack in a combat (assuming combat resolution is a key mechanic in your game).

5) the number (and kind) of different dice required to play the game

6) the number of different tables required to play the game.

7) The number of supplements available (altenately the number of supplements required to play the game)

8) The number of rules prefaced as exceptions to the standard resolution mechanic.

9 ) (hard to measure) the relative quality of indexing in the game's rules material (perhaps as a ratio to rule text references).

Those (in my opinion) are all QUANTITATIVE variables that apply across different systems and can be used to rank the relative rules 'heaviness' of a game. Is it perfect?...no. Subjective?...no. But, still, a good place to start.

 

[gizmo33]

Right, this system would have very low handling time. Example:

DM: "There's a pit in front of you."
Player: "I want to jump the pit."
DM: "Let's see what the rules say about how to resolve that." [Start timer for Handling Time. DM reads two sentence rules document.] "You need to flip a coin." [Stop timer on 4 seconds].
Player: "It came up heads."
DM: "You jump the pit, solve the dungeon and get lots of treasure. You're cool."
Player: "Oh wait! I made a mistake. It was tails."
DM: "You fell in the pit and died. You're a big loser."

Game session ends. Total average "Handling Time" = 4 seconds.

Actually, that's more rules heavy than what I envisioned:

DM: "OK, make your solve dungeon skill check"
Player: (Flips heads) Hoody hoo!
DM: "Ok, well, you enter the Dungeon of Doom, avoiding various traps and monsters, including a nasty pit trap on the second level. The results of you breaking open a variety of chests, including the personal coffers of the Wizard of Doom, is 2000 gp. And 500 XP. Congrats"

 

[gizmo33]

Yes, but can I create a dex-based fighter?

Yes It's all in the flavor text:

Your dex-based fighter, using his dexterity, avoids the traps and monsters of the Dungeon of Doom. Since you rolled heads, legends spread of how your fighter used dexterity to beat the monsters where stronger fighters have failed...blah blah... 2000 gp, 500 XP, blah blah...see you next week.

Character sheet:
Strength: tails
Dexterity: heads
Alignment: heads
Equipment: normal