Tell me what you love about rules heavy games

[Umbran]

What I mean by that is - at a really simple level, this: take an attack bonus like in a game such as D&D. In combat, next to your sword, it says "+9". Nice and quick and easy. You roll d20 and add 9. Hit! Small frontend.

But to GET that +9 you combined class bonuses, and two feats, and ability modifiers, and goodness knows what else. That's the big backend.

So you can spend hours working out how to get your attack bonus as high as possible through numerous mechanisms, but when you come to play in combat, it's that total +9 that matters.

Yes, and in how many rules-heavy games do I really get to write down that +9, and then really never have to worry about the back end again? How many are strategically heavy, but not tactically heavy?

D&D is moderately heavy, strategically (Stats, race, classes, spell choices, feat choices, spell choices...), and is certainly tactically heavy as well. I have to spend time looking at my sheet to figure out which feat or spell or what have you happens to applies to a given situation or action. I am constantly re-calculating my overall attack and defense bonuses.

I am not sure I, personally, would be interested in a game that is strategically heavy, but tactically simple. Oversimplifying for clarity, that's the equivalent of spending a huge amount of time to design, optimize, and build a character to do one thing, and only one thing, in a fight. I think that if it is going to be tactically simple, I would prefer a fast way to get at that simple action, rather than invest lots of time into it.* But that's just me.



*I was playing in a Star Wars Saga Edition game until recently, and I built a character who was pretty tactically simple in combat. I did this not by digging through all the options and finding the one best way to be tactically simple. I just decided that I didn't care if he was particularly effective in combat, and ignored the vast majority of what was available.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

True, but I would posit that the front end is still pretty weighty. While it is possible to build characters whose abilities distill into very specific die rolls that are quickly resolved, the general layout of the combat system is such that a broad variety of builds can still take heavy figuring to make them work at the moment of impact.

Hmmm...that hasn't been my experience. What kinds of things are you asking about?

 

[kitsune9]

• Rules heavy can still be fast and fun (big backend, funnels down to a simple frontend)
• A big backend can mean hours of tinkering and optimization; this is its own level of fun for some people - the game doesn't only take place at the game table, as long as this isn't a requirement
• Tactical play is rewarding in a different way to more narrative play
• Heavily crunchy games have more parts to take apart and play with, lending them well towards houserules and the like
• While crunchy games sometimes require a higher buy-in, I feel they can reward that buy-in

This is pretty much my perception. The reason why I love Hero System and GURPS so much is that they are toolkit rpgs in which I can take few/some/all their mechanics and create my campaign and setting. It has a serious investment in the beginning, but can be really fun once you get started and down to playing.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Crunchy can be fun because ...

- It makes for lots of choices, choices lead to customization, and customization is fun.
- More crunch usually means more options, which leads to variety at the table during play.
- More crunch leads to complexity in interaction, which extends the time it takes to achieve system mastery and learn to get the most out of the game.
- More crunch means more splatbooks, and more splatbooks means more profit, and profit is fun!
- More crunch allows you to feel superior to those rule-lite gamers who can't handle complexity.
- Some gamers just prefer crunchy complexity to rules-lite creaminess.

Not all of these reasons are positive, mind you.

Crunch great! Less filling! Crunch great! Less filling!

 

[herrozerro]

My preference in games lately has gone towards the simple, I started in 4e, transitioned to Savage Worlds and finally Numenera has been calling my name.

Even though my preference has been going down the progression, I have found that I keep looking back up the ladder for satisfaction. I just met with a friend who moved away and just talking to someone who is still pumped about 4e (my local area is mostly into pathfinder) really got me pining for a 4e game again.

I would say that I love the simplicity at the table of Savage Worlds and Numenera, but I also love the complexity and customization of something like 4e. For me the heavyness of rules should lie inbetween the actual game sessions, building encounters, monsters, new items and customizing characters. But when the game starts, I want a simple quick game.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

I don't mind games that are rules-heavy when it comes to character creation, if all the rules help to more fully customize the character.

I don't care for extremely "crunchy" rules when it comes to combat and basic tasks, though. That aspect of the game doesn't have to be extremely light, but there is point at which complexity can slow things down too much.

 

[howandwhy99]

Rules Heavy games are simply games with a large complex pattern as a result of the rules. That doesn't mean there actually needs to be a lot rules, but to have a high complexity there often is. The best thing about rules heavy games is they tend to actually be about playing the game, i.e. thinking and taking actions according to the interactions of the rules, rather than some other thing done peripherally.

For example, sports can be great games and have many rules, but being a great gamer at a sport doesn't necessarily mean you are better at achieving the game objectives because sports are really more about athleticism than game prowess. Magic the Gathering on the other hand... well, that might be called a pocketbook game, but players do need to know how to be good at playing it and not just able to buy the cards to capably compete.

For D&D players since ENWorld came on the scene, I do think you are going to want to focus on combat a good bit. It's wearing thin with some games taking hours for each combat, but it's still very important. In terms of creating RPGs, it's important to ask what role or roles you are going to design in the game for players to master. And if it is multiple roles, how does each interact and match up with the others. Strangely enough bookish wizards don't pair well with warriors normally, but the classic case is Shadowrun's Decker who surfs the interwebs and spends the rest of the game being shuttled from port to port by everyone else.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think having a volume of rules beyond what you need for your game creates a sense of a world that exists beyond your game. The same way Tolkien's languages and fake history create a sense that the world exists beyond the story at hand.

I also think really detailed character creation options are helpful for people who can't come up with character ideas out of the blue (which was most of us at some point, and perhaps many of us still).

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Is it me, or did a bunch of old threads just get bumped?

I like rules-heavy. As a player I jump on plot hooks and like combat. I feel the best combats are set pieces, where plot is on the line, as well as PCs' lives, with a very even chance of winning or losing. I also like "goal posts" although some rules-light systems (Fate at it's most basic) have these too.

As a DM, I like the ease of designing a balanced encounter (whether combat or non) that rules heavy systems often allow for.

Of course, there's downsides. It's not easy to adapt to PCs doing something surprising. For my 4e game, I used a few tables (eg page 42, revised skill DCs, and so forth) plus a giant stable of NPCs and monsters so if PCs go "off script" I can adapt.

Oddly enough, I'm also a fan of Fate. (Spirit of the Century and DIaspora, not Dresden Files or Strands of Fate.) I found rules get in the way of a sci-fi system, and these days I would avoid a sci-fi game that isn't Fate (or something similar).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I like the idea of world building...

I like the idea of having a whole book of chances to make something. charts and grafts and all kinds of what my friends 'fiddly bits'.