What is a GOOD rules light system?

[mhensley]

LA has also seems to have many different names for what have become rather standard game concepts, Merits instead of Experience Points for example. The shear number of different namings makes me think there was some motivation based on copyright, trademark and product identity concerns, or maybe it was something contractual.

The naming thing alone is the barrier to my giving this game a try. I just can't be bothered to learn a bunch of new terms for old concepts. Of course, I have the same problem with C&C and its castle keeper instead of game master. I've run C&C games a couple of times and both groups made fun of that. :\

 

[GrumpyOldMan]

Not to threadjack, but as the writer of the LA Quick Start, I'm curious as to how they aren't quick, or easy to understand. PM me if you'd prefer.

Tom

I'm not just a self proclaimed grumpy old man. My kids (eldest 18) will attest to this.

This first is no doubt a petty rant but:

The game places me in a bad mood before I start reading it, because of it's name. The word is leGendary. This may be supposed to be witty or clever, or cool, but to me it's just plain daft! When I find that PC's are Avatars; damage is hurt; and magic or power points become Activation Energy Points (or AEP's): I begin to think that the author is using obscure names and acronyms to confuse me, and he's succeeding!

I could get over the names (I play a game where I'm constantly refering to ML's EML's and SB's) if I could understand the system and thought that it was any good.

On to more serious matters.

Here are a few of my questions.
Health is the highest of the three Base Ratings... Health is the highest ranging from 40 to upwards of 100.
Then comes Precision
Speed is the lowest, ranging from 6-14

Is there a limit to health? Does upwards of 100 stop at 101, 200, 1000? anywhere? I assume that higher is better, though this is not explicitly stated. And what, exactly is the range for Precision?
I don’t really need to know, because character generation is not explained at all, but it would be nice to have some idea what a ‘normal’ or baseline character Stats (oops, sorry, Base Ratings) are.

A quick look at the magic system leaves me confused

Activation Energy Points (AEP): This is a measurement of the energy the Avatar generates, necessary to energise magical conjurations, powers and rites, called Powers. (see Using Extraordinary Abilities and Powers, p 5)

We’ll leave aside the fact that Using Extraordinary Abilities and Powers is actually on page 4!

My interpretation of this is:
AEP’s are the amount of magical energy a character has. (Perhaps Magical Energy would be a better term to use than AEP’s). They are used by characters to cast magical conjurations (which I assume are spells), powers (I don’t know what ‘powers’ are) and rites (presumably clerical or religious invocations). The word ‘rites’ is a very good one (provided that they are clerical or religious invocations) it is simple and obvious.

All three separate forms of ‘magic’ – magical conjurations, powers and rites are collectively called Powers. That capital ‘P’ could be important, if I could figure out what powers (lowercase p) are, maybe I could figure out how they differ from Powers.

ACTIVATION ENERGY POINTS
All Activations and Powers Require Energy, These energies are measured in terms of Activation Energy Points… When a Power is activated its cost in AEP is deducted from the total
Many Activations may be augmented or enhanced by spending additional AEP.

Okay, I seem to be right about Powers. They cost magic points to cast, a straightforward idea used by Runequest since about 1977, I know that and can cope with it. Now, I think that I’ve got Powers (but not powers) sorted. But wait, what’s this? Activations! What are Activations? I can’t find an explanation.
I know that magic points are called Activation Energy Points. Perhaps they can they be used for something other than casting spells? Perhaps I can use them to augment Abilities. Can I? I don’t know!

I am fighting with poor prose, poor explanations, complicated abbreviations, and no examples. Is it worth me continuing?

No, I’ve got better things to do with my time.

I realise I’ve been (mostly) negative here, but if you’re trying to sell a game on the back of quickstart rules, they need to be easily understood and well laid out. These. I’m afraid aren’t

Check out the Savage Worlds quickstart rules for a few ideas. Snappy, fun, easy to read and easy to understand. Heck, I even went out and bought the game on the back of them. Now, I realise I don’t particularly like the game, but the quickstart rules got peginc. a sale. Yours can’t even get me to play the attached scenario.

I realise I’ve been (mostly) negative here, but if you’re trying to sell a game on the back of quickstart rules, they need to be easily understood and well laid out. These. I’m afraid aren’t.

 

[WayneLigon]

I've been looking at FATE a bit more closely. I asked over on RPG.net and found a couple of very good resources because of it. Homebrewed games has several good sites; Check out the astounding Agyris site. Evil Hat's wiki site has some very good suggestions for example Aspects.

 

[Steverooo]

I said:

I recommend C&C, Lejendary Adventure, and classic D&D.

Actually, I have to recommend AGAINST LA. It's not so much rules light as rules missing, and PCs can't do much of ANYTHING without asking the GM (and then their chances are based upon his whim - which is exactly what some GMs want, but very annoying to many players). After a long time of messing with the system, I have abandoned it, entirely. I found it a confused mess!

You replied:

I'm not sure what to make of this. The PCs have their abilities (i.e. skill bundles) like chivalry, ranging, weapons, etc. They can attempt pretty much anything they like, and the GM handles it based on their abilities, etc.

Their chances are based on the level of the appropriate ability (i.e. skill) or base rating (i.e. stat), plus any modifiers. I guess I don't understand what you're getting at.

Well, there's no accounting for taste, I suppose. My experience has been different. People can judge for themselves by trying out the Quick Start.

Well, let's take an example:

Ranging
All activities having to do with hazardous travel, scouting, scavenging,
smuggling, and also outdoors craft, survival in the outdoors,
camouflage, concealment, deadfalls, pits, poaching, traps and trapping,
etc. are governed by this Ability. When using this Ability to locate
game, a check is made, and if successful, one sort of animal will be
discovered, although it might be a predatory sort rather than a purely
game animal. If Hunt Ability is also possessed, the individual adds
10% of that Score to the Ranging Score in regards to checks against
this Ability and vice versa. This Ability can be used to surprise an
individual or group if the Avatar employing it knows or suspects the
presence of the other(s) and could logically use the Ability at time of
encounter. It can also be used to attempt to avoid being surprised
in an encounter situation if the Avatar employing it could logically
use it at time of encounter. The base Score is used, with the GM
making situational and Avatar characteristic modifiers according to
circumstances.

Now... can this character swim? I would say yes, but as you pointed out:

The PCs have their abilities (i.e. skill bundles) like chivalry, ranging, weapons, etc. They can attempt pretty much anything they like, and the GM handles it based on their abilities, etc.

Can they attempt to swim? I believe (after my pointing this out to the author) that the Quick Start rules now detail which skill bundles do, but from the description of the ranging skill, above, it is a GM call... Hence my saying:

It's not so much rules light as rules missing, and PCs can't do much of ANYTHING without asking the GM (and then their chances are based upon his whim - which is exactly what some GMs want, but very annoying to many players).

Note the skill description, above, says:

"...if the Avatar employing it could logically
use it at time of encounter. The base Score is used, with the GM
making situational and Avatar characteristic modifiers according to
circumstances."

So, in D&D 3.5e, if my PC wants to swim across the creek, I know that the DC is 10, for calm water, 15 in a storm, and I can guess my chances. In LA, it isn't even a given whether or not my character with Ranging ability even knows HOW to swim, and if so, what his chances are, as it can be modified up or down at the GM's whim.

THAT is what I mean when I say "PCs can't do much of ANYTHING without asking the GM (and then their chances are based upon his whim". Look at the combat modifiers used in the "Forlorn Corners" adventure... Not listed on the combat table (not given to PCs, as a general rule, although one assumes that a good GM would either grant them, or not use them for the NPC, although, in my experience, modifications to skill were always downward, never to improve it).

So, as I said, instead of abilities like "Jump" and "Swim", which are clearly defined, LA characters get so-called "skill bundles" which grant... vague & general abilities, allowing them to do... only what the GM allows them to... Even then, they are modified as the GM pleases, and the basic 55% best skill can have modifiers from +60 (automatic failure, at that level) to -30 regularly added, at the whim of the GM!

The rules for weapons, as printed in the LR4AP, Author's, Premiere, and regular versions, are also WRONG, showing magical weapons adding to Weapons ability, when they really SUBTRACT. Hence my "the rules are a mess" comment.

LA is playable, and the crowd that thinks 3.5e has too many rules, and GMs who want to do whatever they want with their games, without some book of rules telling them what to do, will love LA. It is designed for them...

In my experience, however, they will have trouble finding players satisfied with their interpretations of the vague & general skills, and their arbitrary assignment of modifiers...

With a good GM, who has a firm grip upon what can be done with each skill, and consistant modifiers assignment, LA might prove fun, for some. For those who find such games TOO fast and loose, however, they will quickly grow dissatisfied.

I am among the latter!

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

...can [a character with the Ranging ability] swim? I would say yes...but from the description of the ranging skill, above, it is a GM call...

I'd say yes, too. I guess I don't see this as that big a deal. I took your statement about characters not being able to do much of "ANYTHING" more literally than you probably meant it.

I agree that if you want fine-grained detail about what your character can and can't do spelled out by the rules, then LA is not for you. I'd even suggest that rules-lite systems, in general, are probably not for you.

You're right that skill bundles are broad and loosely defined; that's a plus, in my opinion. Fine-grained detail cuts both ways. For example, if your ranger-type character didn't have enough points to buy Knowledge(nature) and Knowledge(geography), then he can't use those skills, BtB. Or take feats. If your ranger-type characters wants to swing really hard, sacrificing some accuracy for power, a fine-grained system might require that he has a special skill or feat (e.g. power attack). If he doesn't have it, the BtB he can't do it. In a coarse-grained system, the player has a lot more freedom, IMO. Of course, the GM makes the final decision.

So really, I guess I agree with you that the GM exercises much more judgment in LA. I just see that as a positive, rather than a negative. I think it's a positive for players, too, because their characters have a lot more freedom to try things without needing a special skill or feat written down on their sheet. YMMV.

I think a rules-lite system like LA makes good GMs really shine, and it highlights the faults of poor GMs. However, I also think that running a rules-lite game is one of the best ways for a GM to improve, because the GM is making a lot more judgment calls and flexing those "GM muscles." The GM is much more of a judge and much less of a rules-looker-upper. I like that; some may not.

The rules for weapons, as printed in the LR4AP, Author's, Premiere, and regular versions, are also WRONG...

That could be; I'm using the Lejendary Essentials rules, and have no experience with LR4AP. Smaller publishers tend to have more editorial flaws like this, in my experience.

In my experience, however, they will have trouble finding players satisfied with their interpretations of the vague & general skills, and their arbitrary assignment of modifiers...

Not much to say to that, other than to note that I haven't experienced this problem.

For those who find such games TOO fast and loose, however, they will quickly grow dissatisfied...I am among the latter!

That's fine: rules-light isn't for everyone. Some players (and GMs) prefer a more detailed and "nailed down" system. As I said, I think I took your statement too literally, before.

The game places me in a bad mood before I start reading it, because of it's name. The word is leGendary. This may be supposed to be witty or clever, or cool, but to me it's just plain daft!

Gary has said that the spelling of Lejendary was done for trademark purposes. He never said anything about making Google or Ebay searches easy, but I like it for that reason too!

Oh, earlier Rothe asked about the development of LA. Gary answered a similar question in this thread.

 

[GrumpyOldMan]

I think a rules-lite system like LA makes good GMs really shine, and it highlights the faults of poor GMs. However, I also think that running a rules-lite game is one of the best ways for a GM to improve, because the GM is making a lot more judgment calls and flexing those "GM muscles." The GM is much more of a judge and much less of a rules-looker-upper. I like that; some may not.

Gary has said that the spelling of Lejendary was done for trademark purposes. He never said anything about making Google or Ebay searches easy, but I like it for that reason too!

Oh, earlier Rothe asked about the development of LA. Gary answered a similar question in this thread.

I think a well designed system makes good GMs really shine, and it highlights the faults of poor GMs. However, I also think that running a well designed game is one of the best ways for a GM to improve, because the GM is making a lot more judgment calls within the rules and flexing those "GM knowledge muscles." The GM is much more of a judge and much less of a rules-looker-upper. I like that; some may not.

I actually don’t think that, I think that a good GM can work wonders with a bad system, and a bad GM can destroy the best. I honestly don’t think rules light or rules heavy makes a difference. We'll have to differ on that, and many other things. Thanks for the link, btw. Here’s my favourite quote.

Why was a skill-based approach decided for LA?

Because I think that a properly done skill-based RPG system is far more interesting and offers much more creatively to all participants than does a class-based game. Anyway, why do another of those where there is D&D?!

This is an extremely arrogant statement, especially coming from a man who was dismissive of percentage based skill systems (such as RuneQuest) when they were rivals to TSR. I realise that people aren’t supposed to say things like this to Gary, especially on a DnD site. So I’ll say nothing more.
BluSponge, if you want further comments on why I don’t like the Quickstart rules, just pm me.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I think a well designed system makes good GMs really shine, and it highlights the faults of poor GMs. However, I also think that running a well designed game is one of the best ways for a GM to improve, because the GM is making a lot more judgment calls within the rules and flexing those "GM knowledge muscles." The GM is much more of a judge and much less of a rules-looker-upper. I like that; some may not.

Uh huh. Nice try, but I don't think it works, because I was talking about coarse-grained/rules-lite vs. fine-grained/rules-heavy, and you're injecting the "well designed system" thing, instead, which isn't really relevant. I think 3E is a well-designed system with heavier rules, and I think LA is a well-designed system with lighter rules. However, the GM being more of a judge than a rule-looker-upper is only true with the lighter systems, precisely because the rules are not defined with the same level of detail.

I actually don’t think that, I think that a good GM can work wonders with a bad system, and a bad GM can destroy the best. I honestly don’t think rules light or rules heavy makes a difference. We'll have to differ on that, and many other things.

As I mentioned, above, I wasn't talking about good and bad systems. I agree with what you said, here. Nevertheless, I stand by my statement about rules-lite systems helping a GM improve. It's not about the system being "bad" or "good," it's about the system giving you detailed rules for everything or leaving a lot of the details up to the players and GM's judgment. Of course, running a rules-lite game would help a GM improve in an area (judgment calls to handle various in-game situations) that wouldn't matter much in a heavier system (since they would have detailed specifics to cover that, anyway). But if the complaint is "rules-lite systems leave too much to GM whim, and the GM can screw it up with poor judgment," then running a rules-lite system is an excellent for a GM to develop more practice and skill in making those kinds of judgments.

Seems pretty self-evident, IMO.

Thanks for the link, btw.

You're welcome.

 

[ValhallaGH]

That's fine: rules-light isn't for everyone. Some players (and GMs) prefer a more detailed and "nailed down" system.

This is why I prefer systems like True 20. It feels like a rules light system, since the PCs just say what they want to do, roll a die and succeed or fail; but it has all the rules a GM needs to fairly and consistantly adjudicate all those crazy ideas players have.
I prefer something that lets my players look at their characters and decide whether or not they have a chance at pulling something off, the same way real people do.

If I want an actual rules light system then I'll use the Prose Descriptive Quality system. A character is [Poor], [Average], [Good] or [Excellent] in a chosen broad field and this is used to resolve all actions. It's fast and the rules fill less than twenty pages, most of those examples.
I prefer the feel of rules light without the arbitrariness. Because every actual rules light system I've ever seen can sum up their task resolution with the following statement, "Roll some dice and tell the (narrator/storyteller/game master/judge/dude at the table) what the result was; he will tell you what happened." Unfortunately, especially for beginner GMs, there are very, very, very few guidelines for helping them decide what happened. And God help you if your GM is in a poor mood because nothing short of divine intervention can help your character.

 

[Felon]

My beef with True20 is lack of content, and a weird order for distributing content. I mean, which would you release first, a sourcebook for playing seventies stereotypes fighting the evil forces of Dick Nixon's killer bees, or a sourcebook that provides a magic system suitable for a fantasy campaign?

Don't get me wrong, T20 reads good, but content needs beefing up.

 

[Turjan]

Don't get me wrong, D20 reads good, but content needs beefing up.

Yeah, we need more d20 supplements .

j/k