Sorry - I think the point was missed...

[Steverooo]

What I do not think is helpful is sustaining the conventional wisdom that says "rules lite games are more fun to play". This statement arises from a chain of logical reasoning: Rules make games complex. The more complex a game is, the harder it will be to play. Therefore, reducing the number of rules should make a game easier to play. The easier a game is to play, the more fun the game becomes. Thus, rules lite games are more fun.

I have tried so-called "rules lite" games, and find them more prone to arguements than "rules heavy" ones, and that destroys any enjoyment that I might ever have gotten from them. At least in D&D, there is usually an answer, if you want to stop and spend the time to look it up... In "rules lite" games, you constantly have to ask the GM "Can my PC do (X)?", and then "Okay, how do we do that? What are my PC's chances?" In 3.5e, you just sit down, look up the DC, calculate the risks vs. your PC's chance of success, and decide whether the risk-to-reward ratio is acceptable. To me, this is preferable to the "Ah, but in this case, your chances are modified by..." approach of "rules lite" GMs.

 

[Akrasia]

.... There is basically not the slightest difference in GM power between rules-heavy and rules-light games. The GM sets the challenges for the players, and he can lead the game wherever he wants, despite all the input by the players. It's just more work for him in the case of a rules-heavy game.

It's true that a rules-heavy game offers more pre-packaged choices for the players, and this creates the illusion of more power for them, but it's an illusion, nevertheless. ...

An excellent, true point.

...
That's why I am looking for a 'rules-light' game. ...

For what it is worth, here are some games that I enjoy GM'ing, that are all 'lighter' than 3e (though they are really 'rules medium', at least in comparison to games like Fudge or Everway):

~ Warhammer FRP (2nd ed.);
~ Castles and Crusades;
~ True 20 (keeps a lot of the options of 3e, but in a simpler, more streamlined package);
~ Cinematic Unisystem (Angel/Buffy -- even if you don't care for the show, the Angel rules make for an excellent 'generic' modern RPG)

 

[JohnSnow]

.... There is basically not the slightest difference in GM power between rules-heavy and rules-light games. The GM sets the challenges for the players, and he can lead the game wherever he wants, despite all the input by the players. It's just more work for him in the case of a rules-heavy game.

It's true that a rules-heavy game offers more pre-packaged choices for the players, and this creates the illusion of more power for them, but it's an illusion, nevertheless.

An excellent, true point.

I disagree. It's not an illusion. Obviously the GM has absolute power during the game, but in a game that covers more situations with stated guidelines (and that's how I see most of the "complex" 3e rules - elaborate guidelines that are intended to make the game more consistent), the players can hold their DM accountable for his squidgy rulings in those areas. If he makes no squidgy rulings, all is well. If he does, he can either a) correct things so that he makes fewer of them in the future, or b) choose to keep making squidgy rulings which will eventually cost him players.

In a rules-light game, that element of accountability is utterly absent. Player's choices are entirely dependent on what the GM chooses to allow, unless it's covered by the rules. That's an enormous distinction. If the GM chooses to arbitrarily change the rules and limit a player's choices, that's his prerogative, but then he's running a rules-heavy game as a rules-light one. But at least the player has some idea of the consequences of his actions.

When I play, I'm after a roleplaying game, not just an immersive storytelling exercise. I want a story with conflict, the chance to make choices that affect the outcome and a resolution system that I can understand. Moreover, I want to know how my choices affect that resolution system. Any "choices" I have or make that lack rules consequences aren't meaningful choices in the context of the game. Obviously, I can "roleplay" them, but that goes back to a storytelling exercise. Now, I admit there are levels of complexity that seem unnecessary to me, and I freely admit the appropriate level of complexity is a matter of personal choice. From a mechanical perspective, the choices available to fighter players under some of the rules-lighter versions of d20 are...uninspiring to say the least.

Mike Mearls talked about this duality in RPGs on the Iron Heroes thread. There's two aspects to roleplaying games - "story" and "rules." The two are clearly linked, but it's a falacy to suggest story solutions to rules issues, or vice versa. If I may be so bold, I think that's why people seem to be able to "game" roleplaying flaws so easily - they take a story penalty in exchange for a rules advantage. That's pretty problematic...

Of course, I may just be talking out of my butt.

 

[Arkhandus]

Nah John, you're not talking out of your butt. {:^D Rules-lite systems do tend to make for more arguments from what I can tell, because there's less clarity about what can be done in the game and, more importantly, how exactly to go about it (do I roll X and add Y? Do I use skill Z or ability N? Can trait M work this way if I do it like this? Etc.). Rules-heavy games can have rules arguments too, but notsomuch, and at least they have precedents and such to base a decision on.

Ideally, a game would start out relatively simple, but have enough depth and complexity beyond the basic rules to keep folks interested if the simple stuff gets boring.

And Gentlegamer, you really should change your misnomer of a moniker to something more appropriate to your scathing, rude, thinly-veiled insulting and arrogant behavior. I'm still stupified at how stubbornly you refute things with your simple, odd reasoning. Like 3E isn't really D&D. Your just too stubborn to see how idiotic a statement stuff like that is, considering the differences between game editions in D&D and other stuff. Of course, from reading your odd justifications and arguments, many of which you refuse to support because you claim they've been done to death already (which obviously is erroneous since many of us haven't seen such evidence), you also seem to think AD&D or at least AD&D 2E also aren't actually D&D. You're like a stubborn, mean-spirited, pretentious alter ego of Diaglo (no insult meant to Diaglo though!). I cannot fathom what's broken inside your brain to justify your, ahem, 'logic'.

Ryan, don't be discouraged by the tiny minority of thick-skulled hotheads like him.

 

[Psion]

1) Ryan is not the first person to point to the quality of player empowerment with more rules heavy game. Robin Laws, in his book on Good Gamemastering, points this out as well. And if you think he's some frothing rules light hater, you missed Feng Shui.

2) Yes, there are exceptions, but I beleive that is because the terms rules light and rules heavy are inprecise. The quality of player empowerment by addressing common issues more explicitly vice GM fiat has a strong positive correlation to the rules heavy / light axis. Noting that they are not the same can help refine the issue, but using it as a nitpick just hinders communication.

3) Is there really such a thing as "illusion" when you are talking about a shared imaginary activity? I've said myself before that railroading (or lack of it) is in part just an illusion -- but one that when properly perpetrated contributes to the enjoyment of the game.

 

[Psion]

There's two aspects to roleplaying games - "story" and "rules." The two are clearly linked, but it's a falacy to suggest story solutions to rules issues, or vice versa. If I may be so bold, I think that's why people seem to be able to "game" roleplaying flaws so easily - they take a story penalty in exchange for a rules advantage. That's pretty problematic...

That's precisely why I disdain the 1e UA Cavalier and Barbarian, 50% of 2e kits, and 90% of "points for disads" arrangements.

 

[JohnSnow]

That's precisely why I disdain the 1e UA Cavalier and Barbarian, 50% of 2e kits, and 90% of "points for disads" arrangements.

Makes two of us. Oh don't get me wrong, I loved them as a munchkin power-gamer. And I loved getting "story advantages" for "story penalties." Two of the GOOD 2e kits, IMO, were the Swashbuckler and the Troubleshooter (in their original Complete Fighter and Complete Thief incarnations, not the Player's Option abomination versions). They had some rule-based advantages countered by rule-based disadvantages, and some story-based advantages countered by story-based disadvantages ("Trouble seeks out the Swashbuckler" and "Troubleshooters have a knack for, well, troubleshooting" respectively).

Most of the other kits...sucked.

 

[Turjan]

I disagree. It's not an illusion. Obviously the GM has absolute power during the game, but in a game that covers more situations with stated guidelines (and that's how I see most of the "complex" 3e rules - elaborate guidelines that are intended to make the game more consistent), the players can hold their DM accountable for his squidgy rulings in those areas. If he makes no squidgy rulings, all is well. If he does, he can either a) correct things so that he makes fewer of them in the future, or b) choose to keep making squidgy rulings which will eventually cost him players.

This is more a problem of player/GM interaction. I hate arbitrary actions by GMs as much as you do. Rulings have to be consistent, whether it's a rules-light or a rules-heavy game. I agree with you that rules-light games are only suitable for a group of players and GM(s) who trust each other. Rules are there to make life easier for people who don't trust each other. The problem of accountability arises in all games. The summary of what you say is that rules-heavy games give the player the means to win an argument. If a GM tends to make "squidgy rulings", he'll do that whatever the rules are. I simply try to avoid "squidgy rulings".

In a rules-light game, that element of accountability is utterly absent. Player's choices are entirely dependent on what the GM chooses to allow, unless it's covered by the rules. That's an enormous distinction. If the GM chooses to arbitrarily change the rules and limit a player's choices, that's his prerogative, but then he's running a rules-heavy game as a rules-light one. But at least the player has some idea of the consequences of his actions.

Perhaps, I should clarify what I mean with 'rules-light'. I'm no advocate of games that leave the outcome of conflicts completely to the whims of the GM. Even 'rules-light' games should have a decent and robust combat engine for me, and I definitely prefer dice resolution. Everything else is negotiable, anyway, regardless of the rules.

When I play, I'm after a roleplaying game, not just an immersive storytelling exercise. I want a story with conflict, the chance to make choices that affect the outcome and a resolution system that I can understand. Moreover, I want to know how my choices affect that resolution system. Any "choices" I have or make that lack rules consequences aren't meaningful choices in the context of the game. Obviously, I can "roleplay" them, but that goes back to a storytelling exercise. Now, I admit there are levels of complexity that seem unnecessary to me, and I freely admit the appropriate level of complexity is a matter of personal choice. From a mechanical perspective, the choices available to fighter players under some of the rules-lighter versions of d20 are...uninspiring to say the least.

I agree that fighters were boring in older versions of D&D. I never played any. Still, there are players who love that kind of class, and they are fine with descriptions of their deeds. By the way, there are 'rules-light' games that give you mechanical means to exert special combat manoeuvres, like HeroQuest. Although I'm not completely convinced that HeroQuest qualifies as 'rules-light'. At least, it's very complicated to wrap your mind around if you come from D&D.

Mike Mearls talked about this duality in RPGs on the Iron Heroes thread. There's two aspects to roleplaying games - "story" and "rules." The two are clearly linked, but it's a falacy to suggest story solutions to rules issues, or vice versa. If I may be so bold, I think that's why people seem to be able to "game" roleplaying flaws so easily - they take a story penalty in exchange for a rules advantage. That's pretty problematic...

It's a fallacy with a certain sort of players. Anyway, I don't think our opinions are that far apart regarding this particular point. The games I refer to just have a reduced set of numbers to fall back on for solving particular situations. These are still numbers to fall back on, you just use more often the same numbers for similar tasks.

 

[Turjan]

Nah John, you're not talking out of your butt. {:^D Rules-lite systems do tend to make for more arguments from what I can tell, because there's less clarity about what can be done in the game and, more importantly, how exactly to go about it (do I roll X and add Y? Do I use skill Z or ability N? Can trait M work this way if I do it like this? Etc.). Rules-heavy games can have rules arguments too, but notsomuch, and at least they have precedents and such to base a decision on.

I agree with you (and Ryan Dancey ) in this point. There are questions coming up like that. Rules-light games are nothing for people who always want to 'win' an argument, because they tend to spend too much time with arguing for their 2 point modifier. That's what I meant with 'trust' in my last answer. If you really think the GM is out to get you, you're better off with a rules-heavy game. In the rules-heavy game, you're only screwed if the GM is, indeed, out to get you, but not when you only think he is .

Edit: Just to illustrate my 'illusion' point: In the rules-heavy game, the player will not so much argue about which modifier he is allowed to use, because he can fall back on the rules to decide that. I as a DM can adjust that by applying all those numerous +2 or -2 modifiers to the DC that I have the sole control about. It's even a must, because my group tends to forget many of their positive modifiers, and if I don't want to constantly remind them, I just have to wiggle around on my part.

 

[Akrasia]

I disagree. It's not an illusion. Obviously the GM has absolute power during the game, but in a game that covers more situations with stated guidelines (and that's how I see most of the "complex" 3e rules - elaborate guidelines that are intended to make the game more consistent), the players can hold their DM accountable for his squidgy rulings in those areas. If he makes no squidgy rulings, all is well. If he does, he can either a) correct things so that he makes fewer of them in the future, or b) choose to keep making squidgy rulings which will eventually cost him players...

What is a "squidgy ruling"?

The GM *creates* the world and the scenarios in quesion. He/she is *not* 'modelling' an independent reality, with respect to which his/her description might be more or less accurate (and thus one that could be "challenged" by players). So how could players *possibly* object that the GM's description of the world/situation is 'squidgy'? That makes no sense.

Players might not like it if the GM keeps posing challenges that are too difficult for the PCs (or too easy) -- and perhaps 'rules heavy' systems provide additional *advice* to the GM on how to come up with appropriate challenges. (Of course, there is nothing preventing similar advice being available in a 'rules light' game -- see the Angel RPG for an excellent example of this.)

But the notion that players can "challenge" the DM's interpretation of a world/situation that he/she *created* as "squidgy" is patently absurd IMO.

In a rules-light game, that element of accountability is utterly absent. Player's choices are entirely dependent on what the GM chooses to allow, unless it's covered by the rules. ...

Rubbish -- or at least, a gross generalization based on a premise that I reject. The element of "accountability" is not absent in rules light games -- at least not in well run rules light games.

You appear to be in the grip of the "relative power" paradigm of understanding RPGs. Such a paradigm is bound to make players dislike rules light games, since they are *not* designed within that paradigm. Rather, they are meant to be *cooperative* activities -- *not* activities in which the players "use the rules against the GM", and the "GM uses the rules against the players" (i.e. 'power strugges' in which the rules are used by competing participants).

Finally, even in terms of *rules*, there are a few 'rules light' games that gives players *rule mechanisms* for countering the GM's decisions -- e.g. "drama points" in Cinematic Unisystem, "bennies" in Savage Worlds, etc. Some rules light games even let players *narrate* the situations in which their character act.

I want a story with conflict, the chance to make choices that affect the outcome and a resolution system that I can understand. Moreover, I want to know how my choices affect that resolution system.

I would think that it would be easier to understand a simpler "resolution system" than a complex one, or one with a huge number of potential modifiers.

Also, some rules light systems let players propose modifiers based on their understanding of the situation in question -- that's part of the 'cooperative' nature of such games.

...
The two are clearly linked, but it's a falacy to suggest story solutions to rules issues, or vice versa. ...

I somewhat agree with this point ... and don't see how it has anything to do with the relative merits of rules heavy and rules light systems.