Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7714631" data-attributes="member: 22779">I still stand by my original point - rules light systems rely far more on the GM than rules heavy systems in order to produce a particular experience at the table.&nbsp; Take a game like FATE.&nbsp; Now, that's a pretty rules light system.&nbsp; Thing is, there&nbsp; are so many areas where the DM needs to step in and adjudicate and arbitrate resolutions.&nbsp; Which, if you have a good DM, means that the game will run fantastic.&nbsp; Probably, depending on the experience you want, better than a rules heavy system.&nbsp; It's faster, cleaner and gets out of the way more.However, and this is the big caveat, if the GM isn't on the ball, the system gets extremely frustrating.&nbsp; Misalignments of play styles at the table get exacerbated to a much greater degree because the player is expecting different results than what the GM is giving.&nbsp; And without a strong rules framework to rely on, there's nothing to appeal to.&nbsp; Add in vague writing (which appears in any RPG) and you wind up spending more time talking about the game than actually playing it.Look, I love rules light games.&nbsp; I do.&nbsp; I would love to play FATE or GUMSHOE, or Dread or any of a host of other light RPG's out there all the time.&nbsp; But, should we embrace rules light as the &quot;better&quot; entrance into the hobby?&nbsp; I'm not convinced.&nbsp; There's a reason that the process of getting into the hobby usually starts with things like D&amp;D and then moves into more indie game, like, say, Blades in the Dark.&nbsp; These rules lighter games are a lot harder to run successfully.&nbsp; Hand a 12 year old a copy of the 5e basic rules and a couple of the Adventure League modules and you're off and running.&nbsp; Hand that same 12 year old a copy of FATE and it's going to be a train wreck.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7714631, member: 22779"] I still stand by my original point - rules light systems rely far more on the GM than rules heavy systems in order to produce a particular experience at the table. Take a game like FATE. Now, that's a pretty rules light system. Thing is, there are so many areas where the DM needs to step in and adjudicate and arbitrate resolutions. Which, if you have a good DM, means that the game will run fantastic. Probably, depending on the experience you want, better than a rules heavy system. It's faster, cleaner and gets out of the way more. However, and this is the big caveat, if the GM isn't on the ball, the system gets extremely frustrating. Misalignments of play styles at the table get exacerbated to a much greater degree because the player is expecting different results than what the GM is giving. And without a strong rules framework to rely on, there's nothing to appeal to. Add in vague writing (which appears in any RPG) and you wind up spending more time talking about the game than actually playing it. Look, I love rules light games. I do. I would love to play FATE or GUMSHOE, or Dread or any of a host of other light RPG's out there all the time. But, should we embrace rules light as the "better" entrance into the hobby? I'm not convinced. There's a reason that the process of getting into the hobby usually starts with things like D&D and then moves into more indie game, like, say, Blades in the Dark. These rules lighter games are a lot harder to run successfully. Hand a 12 year old a copy of the 5e basic rules and a couple of the Adventure League modules and you're off and running. Hand that same 12 year old a copy of FATE and it's going to be a train wreck. [/QUOTE]

Verification