Tired of d20 yet?

[Psion]

Really? My experience has been quite different.

That has been known to happen.

A good 'rules light' system can do everything that a 'rules heavy' system does.

Without the attendant extra work or tolerance of a higher level inconsistancy? I remain to be convinced of that. But of course we've been over this ground before; I don't expect it to be any different this time.

Tweaking the system (modifying the core rules) for one's own group is just a feature -- not a bug -- of 'rules light' systems!

Tweaking is something I am perfectly capable of in less "rules-light" systems, if I feel the need, so this "feature" is not unique. The advantage is that, if the system addresses my needs as is, there is less need.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The two rules light games that I have been involved with over the past year (Angel, C&C) are both 'complete'

Just like d02.

I really mean d02, by the by, not a misspelled d20.

As in, for each action you want to accomplish, flip a coin. Heads it works, tails it doesn't.

A complete - if not very satisfying - system.

 

[Kanegrundar]

I know house rules come with any game, but that's what always drove me from truly rules-light games. I hated making stuff up. If I didn't write it down I would forget and do it differently the next time. Sure, I could tweak to my heart's content, but that take time away from actually playing the game with set rules that actually cover the stuff that come up in game. Sure, D20 maybe rules heavy, but with everything using the same dice mechanic throughout it's not hard to remember rules. That's one of the main reasons that I stick with D20. (That and there are a lot of my favorite settings from Star Wars and Babylon 5 to Warcraft that all use the system allowing me to create the ultimate kitchen sink setting I always wanted to.)

Kane

 

[Crothian]

A good 'rules light' system can do everything that a 'rules heavy' system does.

At least that has been my experience, having been involved with comparatively 'rules light' games like Angel/Buffy and C&C over the past year. (I say 'comparatively rules light', because I am speaking of games relative to d20.)

The angle/buffy system are rules light but they do not do everything as well as a rules heavy game. High level play in that system gets out of hand fast. It doesn't takew long for the white hats to become completely useless and the Slayer to juust dominate combat for instance. And while that is true to the show, playing the game it became too much.

 

[Akrasia]

... Without the attendant extra work or tolerance of a higher level inconsistancy? I remain to be convinced of that. But of course we've been over this ground before; I don't expect it to be any different this time.

You seem committed to the belief that rules light systems must lead to 'inconsistency'.

Fortunately, my own experiences have led me to acquire different beliefs -- ones that seem to be supported by repeated empirical testing.

...
Tweaking is something I am perfectly capable of in less "rules-light" systems, if I feel the need, so this "feature" is not unique. The advantage is that, if the system addresses my needs as is, there is less need.

Sure, people can tweak any system. My point is simply that it is easier in a rules light system -- just as it is easier to modify a model with fewer variables, or an argument with fewer premises.

As for having a system that "already addresses your needs" -- well that's nice! Different people have different tastes. Some people like rules heavy systems. It is a simple difference in preferences.

What I don't understand is the need for some people to make ill-founded claims about how 'rules light' games are necessarily 'incomplete', etc. That blather is rather tiresome -- though I suppose it gives comfort to people who hold the prejudices in question (and makes their labours in statting up 17th level enchanters more bearable).

(Claims about the 'inadequacy ' of 'rules light' systems is the converse of the claim made by some people that 3.5 D&D is "nothing more" than a "tactical wargame" that discourages role playing. Both are inaccurate beliefs formed by people with biases against a certain style of game.)

 

[Akrasia]

The angle/buffy system are rules light but they do not do everything as well as a rules heavy game. High level play in that system gets out of hand fast...

Whereas high level play in 3.5 D&D is a breeze?!

 

[Akrasia]

Just like d02.

I really mean d02, by the by, not a misspelled d20.

As in, for each action you want to accomplish, flip a coin. Heads it works, tails it doesn't.

A complete - if not very satisfying - system.

But dude -- IT KNOW NO LIMIT!

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rdeese/RPG/D02/D02.htm

 

[Akrasia]

Actually, since there is nothing 'intrinsic' to d20 (as opposed to 3.5 D&D) that makes it 'rules heavy', this debate is somewhat of a tangent.

There appear to be d20 systems that are relatively 'rules light' in nature (e.g Blue Rose, Lone Wolf). And even C&C could be considered 'd20' on an ecumencial interpretation of the term.

 

[Kanegrundar]

High level 3.5 play may take more record keeping and a bit more time, but it's hardly difficult. Maybe not as much as a breeze as say, C&C, but it's still easy enough for me.

Kane

 

[Psion]

You seem committed to the belief that rules light systems must lead to 'inconsistency'.

Fortunately, my own experiences have led me to acquire different beliefs -- ones that seem to be supported by repeated empirical testing.

You seem to be in denial that that rules light systems must lead to inconsistant rulings.

My own experiences have led me to acquire different beliefs -- ones that seem to be supported by repeated empirical testing.

Now I wonder why we came to different conclusions in our so called "empirical" testing.

Hmmm... could it be different conditions like different players, maybe?

As for having a system that "already addresses your needs" -- well that's nice! Different people have different tastes. Some people like rules heavy systems. It is a simple difference in preferences.

Great! Then why are we having this argument?

What I don't understand is the need for some people to make ill-founded claims about how 'rules light' games are necessarily 'incomplete', etc.

Not too much differnet than people making unfounded claims that rules heavy games are "too complex." Because, well, for their purposes they are. The assessment that a game is "incomplete" (or contrariwise, provides more than you need) are the direct outcome of a comparison to your own very personal definition of what is "needed."

Let's try this little excercise.

I'll own that rules heavier game come with some attendant overhead in learning and or referencing rules. But my tastes and talents make this tolerable.

Now you own up that "rules light games require more ad hoc rulings with less benefit of forethought thus are more inconsistant, but your tastes and talents let you tolerate it."

Ready? GO!