What is the least amount of rules you need?

[JohnSnow]

So, I voted "moderate," but it depends heavily on your definition.

What I really like are well-codified rules for situations that should be well-codified, along with a great deal of abstraction. What do I mean by that? It's probably best if I give an example. And, just for grins, I'll go with combat, because it gets used in a lot of games, and it happens to be something I know a fair amount about, since I run a renaissance stage combat school, and have both performed in and directed sword-fighting shows.

I want a combat system where choices matter: what weapon you choose, what kind of armor you wear, whether you're fighting with one weapon, or two, or a sword and shield, how defensively you fight, whether you try to accomplish any tricky maneuvers, and so on. What I don't want is a system that tracks every thrust, parry, roll and strike. It's just unfeasible to get that granular, and the game would bog down to try to resolve it that way. That said, simply boiling it down to "Do you hit? Roll a 5 or higher on a d6," is a bit too rules light for me.

I also hate systems where things that should be character abilities are instead dumped on to the player. I don't want a solution of "just role-play it" for social situations, or where my character's ability to look for traps, start a campfire, or survive in the woods hinges on my own ability to think of how to do any of those things. It should be as simple as the player asking the right question, but them coming up with a good answer should have a rule behind it, not be dependent on the player's ability as an improv actor or storyteller.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Wherever Tinyd6, Icons: Assembled (w/ Great Power supplement), Savage Worlds (with appropriate genre companion or setting), and 5e D&D (core books + a few 3rd party class/subclass and monster pdf supplements) fall.

I think I'd have to call at least three of those Moderate, possibly the step up.

 

[tetrasodium]

Not at all familiar with lasers & feelings & not sure I've ever heard of it.

I went with moderate but if given two options would probably have checked heavy as the second choice. I say that because it's easier to ignore an overly crunchy section in the rules than it is to build one where the section is missing or lacking in some way. Rules light systems that really work great tend to have a certain elegance to their extensible framework. That elegance & framework provides ample room to allow it to be poured into a wide variety of situations/themes/whatever.* It's easy to go too light like fate accelerated where you paradoxically simplify the system to the point that it becomes more difficult or certain other games where they get praise for glaring holes & conflicts in the rules that get subjected to spin about simplicity streamlined or working as designed. Going too heavy on the rules crosses into an area where even people who like the system will readily admit that areas like x & y can be a little dense or work better if just used as general guidance.

*Different systems have different goals& can write at length with examples & guidance on how those goals play out at the table when it's important to grok.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Considering that HERO 5th and Pathfinder are two of my favorite game, and that the lightest game I use is Cypher, I voted Heavy.

 

[mythago]

Note: for the purposes of this discussion, I think the G part is important. That is, it should still be a game (as opposed to a simple storytelling exercise) so there must SOME rules and something that looks like success or failure (although those concepts are fuzzy in RPGs).

Though even improv exercises, which are literally storytelling practice, are called “games” and have rules. “Yes, and” is a rule. Zip-zap-zop has very minimalist but ironclad rules (not that you’d build a campaign around it).

At this point my test for rules is, can I get enough mastery with this new system in 15 minutes to be up and running my character? If not, thanks, I’ll play something else. It’s not that games with more rules are inherently bad, I just no longer have the time or mental fortitude for learning Another Damn Rules System or for doing homework in order to have fun.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Though even improv exercises, which are literally storytelling practice, are called “games” and have rules. “Yes, and” is a rule. Zip-zap-zop has very minimalist but ironclad rules (not that you’d build a campaign around it).

At this point my test for rules is, can I get enough mastery with this new system in 15 minutes to be up and running my character? If not, thanks, I’ll play something else. It’s not that games with more rules are inherently bad, I just no longer have the time or mental fortitude for learning Another Damn Rules System or for doing homework in order to have fun.

Which is very much a legitimate position. Its what makes it hard to talk about what is necessary in this area, because I can honestly say that if I only need 15 minutes to understand a system (barring it being a simple variation on a system I already know) there's probably not enough meat in the mechanics for me to sink my teeth in in play to enjoy it much.

 

[Pedantic]

Which is very much a legitimate position. Its what makes it hard to talk about what is necessary in this area, because I can honestly say that if I only need 15 minutes to understand a system (barring it being a simple variation on a system I already know) there's probably not enough meat in the mechanics for me to sink my teeth in in play to enjoy it much.

Yeah, to make a board game analogy, I'm suspicious of any game that has less than a 20 minute teach. There exist very few that have interesting depth of decision making outside of at least that range.

I'm currently writing a calculation spreadsheet to handle the slightly unusual stock manipulation rules of the 18xx game we're planning to play in three weeks, and from my perspective that's a completely reasonable amount of prep for the enjoyment I'll get from the experience.

 

[Mark Cleveland]

I voted "minimalist." I've seen and played games with only a bare bones ruleset.

However I think I prefer games have at least a "light" ruleset though. Abilities and advancement aren't necessarily required, but something that extends play beyond the level of a guided conversation is more my style.

 

[Xamnam]

I'm worlds more comfortable on monkey bars than a balance beam, so I'm going to have to land on the answer of light. When I read truly minimalist games, I tend to struggle to picture them.

 

[GMMichael]

I'm worlds more comfortable on monkey bars than a balance beam, so I'm going to have to land on the answer of light. When I read truly minimalist games, I tend to struggle to picture them.

Nice analogy! It explains why "mechanic" is often the wrong term: a balance beam just needs a wrench, and monkey bars need welders.