Rules-Satisfying

[chaochou]

I'm a fan of having "fluid" rules that expect GM decision making all the time.

Make a system that wants rules, and where those rules actually contribute in a meaningful way, or entirely skip them.

It's been suggested but you want to try Apocalypse World, I think. Here's a rule from AW:

When you do something under fire, or dig in to endure fire, roll +cool. On a 10+ you do it. On a 7-9 you flinch, hesitate or stall - the MC can offer you a worse outcome, a hard bargain or an ugly choice.
​

Doing something under fire can literally mean being shot at, can mean acting under duress, under time pressure.. so the MC has to decide when this kicks in. And on a 7-9 you have to come up with a 'hard bargain' or 'ugly choice' right there at the table depending on the whats, whys and hows of the described action. It's a game that makes the MC a 'player' - you have to be right there in the scene to run it.

On a failure you might have to end the scene and kick into a new one at the drop of a hat. It's exhilarating to run and the same to play.

(I was running it over Easter and it rocked).

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I think "rules-satisfying" is what everyone wants. But it's totally subjective. Rules-light folks find their light rules satisfying, that's why they play them. Rules-heavy folks the same. You just happen to be somewhere between those extremes along with most of the rest of us.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think "rules-satisfying" is what everyone wants. But it's totally subjective. Rules-light folks find their light rules satisfying, that's why they play them. Rules-heavy folks the same. You just happen to be somewhere between those extremes along with most of the rest of us.

This isn't quite my experience. The common driver behind rules light is the idea that rules are a necessary evil. The driver behind what I consider elegant rules is that good rules actively strengthen and focus the game and point it down paths it would otherwise not go down.

 

[Stormonu]

I will throw in my hat in saying that Savage Worlds has become the system for me for "rules-satisfying". I'd also like to include FATE, but I've only had the chance to read it, but not play it.

My biggest concerns for rules satisfying are three-fold:

1) How much time are rules questions going to take up? If I have to go hunt a rule down or read to make a ruling, it makes me less likely to enjoy the game. In the best case, there's only a couple rules to keep track of, the players have the info on their sheet or a moment or two of thought and I can decide in which directions things will go. Also factoring into that is rule lawyering. While that is almost exclusively a player base/table issue than one of the ruleset, I now actively avoid rulesets where rule fights are more likely to occur (yes, D&D 3E falls into this category)

2) Do character choices count? If I make a swashbuckling pirate, I want my choices to have meaning and effects on game play, not just in name. For example, 1E D&D was very bad in this regard - said swashbuckling pirate would likely be a generic fighter or thief, and fighting unarmored or with a rapier would have proved to be extremely ungratifying.

3) Rules coherency. Quite simply, the rules should fit the fiction, and there should be a framework to to leave as few gaps as possible - covering as many bases as possible without a handful of charts or esoteric equasions. I don't want to see something like V&V's carrying capacity formula in any game I play ever again. And differentiating a wizard from a sorcerer isn't something that should require ten pages to accomplish. But neither should a game leave out rules for like, skills.