Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gorgon Zee" data-source="post: 7715918" data-attributes="member: 75787">Curious. My experience is pretty much the opposite. By far all the worst experiences I have had have been with heavy systems. If I had to list my 30 worst experiences (and I might be able to!) I would expect 25-29 of them to be rules heavy systems. I have been running 4e recently for a group of young adults (8-15 years) and, frankly, even though I know 4e inside out, the heaviness of the rules gets in the way. A lot. Focusing specifically on new players experience, here is what I have seen, as a new player and GM and as an experienced player/GM working with new people: Rules heavy systems (as in, systems with lots of rules) are not a good intro to the hobby. Here are some observations:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> In a rules heavy game, when people don't know something, the game stops and there is a 10 minute search and discussion before the situation is resolved. It is usually resolved correctly, but very often the complexity of the rules means that you don't even get that benefit. I cannot tell you the number of times a 3.5 game has ground to a halt because a new guy does something that appears very natural like grabbing someone to stop them attacking, and we have to abandon playing the game to play "explain the rules". A good GM will just hand-wave and carry on, but that's exactly a rules light approach. In the rules-light system, the GM knows there isn't a rule, so makes a call and moves on. They may spend a while thinking and it may be a bad call, but the overall experience is far, far better than the rules-search. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> In a rules-have game, I allot 30 minutes to explaining a character sheet. In FATE, I allot 5 minutes. During play it takes a significant amount of time even to FIND things on a rules-heavy character sheet (quick check -- where's initiative on your favorite heavy system? -- very week I run 4E, this gets asked. Every. Single. Week.) </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> In a rules-heavy system, character creation requires effort. So much so that I have *never* had a good experience where we rolled up characters at a convention session. Near the top of my worst-ever games would be the 6 hour Aces and Eights game that featured 4 hours character creation and 2 hours combat, of which 1 hour was looking up rules. That does not happen in rules-light systems. I've rolled up full characters for Fiasco, Fudge, Hillfolk, and "finished off" characters in 13th Age, FATE and other mid-weight systems. Many people really like to create a character. Much harder to work out which of 100+ feats to take than write down a descriptive aspect. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Rules trump GMs. Especially for beginning GMs. If you are splaying in a rules light system, then the players default mode is to *trust the GM* and look to support them. If the GM looks at the battle and says "I guess the low-light should make it harder to hit" then in a rules-light game players suggest ways that the GM's vision might be true: "You could invoke it for defense", or "it makes all vision related tasks one step harder". In a rules-heavy game, a very common response is from the rules expert who belittles the GM letting them known that within 10 squares low-light doesn't affect to-hit ratings. He's not wrong, but because the player knows the rules, they have more influence over the game than the GM. I'm not saying that player isn't a dick, or that people don't do that in rules-light games, but it happens a LOT in rules-heavy games. Not so much rules-lawyering as rules-one-upmanship. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> As sated before, we must consider RULE ZERO. In a rules heavy game, rule zero is the rule of last resort. It is seen as a form of failure -- the game has failed to be complete and so we must fall back to imagination. Because the goal of having lots of rules is (at least in a good system)  to cover many situations, I really feel that in those games rule zero feels like an admission of failure. In rules light systems, rule zero is so much more likely to occur that it has good support. Take the case of a player using a shield a sled. In the rules heavy game, you have a lot of choices -- in D&D I might go acrobatics, or athletics, or endurance and I have not a ton of guidance on the difficulty levels. I'm on my own to make up a rule in a system that judges a GM on how well they follow the rules. In Fate Accelerated, even a novice GM is going to get something reasonable rapidly: Rules light systems provide support for rule zero much more at the same level as they do for the rest of the game, instead of treating it like a rules failure.</li> </ul>Honestly, I cannot support the contention that rules-heavy systems are easier for new GMs. I think the basic issue I have is that by implicitly elevating the rules over the GM, it undermines the new GM and forces them to check with their superior all the time, and provides both a measure and a stick by which the players can rate and berate their GM. I find that unhelpful. Or, thinking of it another way, if everything goes well, any system is good. If you assume there are issues with a new GM, would you prefer to spend 4 hours looking up rules, or 4 hours playing a wildly inconsistent game with odd interpretations. My answer is the second, by a lot. I'd prefer to actually play a Captain America who the GM has decided wrongly that the shield is a useless attack, rather than spend the time working out that I need to take the Heavy Shield feat to use it, then the Thrown Shield Feat to throw it, and cross-reference that with the thrown weapons (improvised) table, adding a +4 bonus for the heavy shield to the attack, but NOT to the damage.</blockquote>

Verification