What is the least amount of rules you need?

[Lanefan]

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.

You and @Pedantic are both touching on a corollary issue to this question, that being whether one is answering as player or GM.

As player, I want it fairly rules-light on the player side such that the mechanics can largely get out of my way and let me play my character. I'm not going to remember fiddly mechanical bits like 3e D&D asked me to; and if I have to refer to the character sheet more than once or twice in a session, that's already more than enough. Tell me what to roll when (if not already clear) and I'll let the GM worry about the mechanical side of things from there. Make basic character generation simple and fast. As a player, I want to be able to just dive right in and start playing.

As a GM, however, I want a comprehensive rules-set that covers most of the bases and makes wise use of discrete or bespoke subsystems where necessary; but I also want those system and sub-systems to be clear and straightforward within themselves; and all of this in order to make it easier for me to carry the mechnical load for the players. I don't expect to be able to learn the whole system quickly; and if I can, that's a big red flag telling me it's probably not deep enough for what I want.

An example of the sort of thing I'm after: 1e D&D has a very simple and elegant subsystem for Clerics turning undead, which works great for that purpose yet doesn't come up at any other time during the game. A PC is trying to turn an undead? Good: I-as-GM know exactly where to look and what to do next, in full knowledge the rules have me covered. That's my preference over "unified" mechanics which, while perhaps easier from the GM's end, don't always do as good a job as do bespoke mechanics at any given task.

I'll also note I'm answering from a long-campaign perspective. One-offs and con games are almost a completely different animal.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You and @Pedantic are both touching on a corollary issue to this question, that being whether one is answering as player or GM.

While I admit I GM more than play, if anything I care about mechanics even more as a player. I'm very much here both to roleplay and to play a game, and the latter is not optional; in a way said in other contexts, I really do want both my chocolate and my peanut butter. In my person experience switching back and forth between the two aspects is not painful, and if anything, the mechanics let me commit more to the character because I'm not working on what may end up being a false model of expectations.

 

[Pedantic]

While I admit I GM more than play, if anything I care about mechanics even more as a player. I'm very much here both to roleplay and to play a game, and the latter is not optional; in a way said in other contexts, I really do want both my chocolate and my peanut butter. In my person experience switching back and forth between the two aspects is not painful, and if anything, the mechanics let me commit more to the character because I'm not working on what may end up being a false model of expectations.

What they said.

I think, @Lanefan you're bringing a personal experience to the level of a principle. The mechanics at no point "get out of my way" and having less to work with there just gives me less agency as a player. I do not want to be told what to roll, I want to call for a specific roll, referencing a specific subsystem to produce a specific effect. If anything, in my experience I would describe the precise opposite dynamic that you do. I want as much mechanical engagement as I can get as a player, while as a GM I have so much control over the world already that I'm not quite as bothered about trying to encapsulate the whole thing into a specific set of mechanical levers. There's always more trolls, I can try that thing with the climbing rules again next encounter to see if there's a way to make it interesting for my players. On the other side of the table as a player, I have a problem to solve and limited tools to solve it, I would very much like them to be well defined and effective.

 

[aramis erak]

EDIT: I added a poll.

I am planning to run Lazers and Feelings soon, and it got me to thinking about how little/few rules one might need in order to effectively play a TTRPG. So I am curious what others thing.

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). But with that in mind, what is the bare minimum level of rules you need to feel like you are playing a TTRPG?

These aren't hard and fast definitions, but I'll throw out some terms to help us in our discussion:

I need three things:

1. enforcement of setting tropes.
   1. this includes character creation
   2. this includes suitable abstractions
2. action resolution using randomness and multiple difficulty levels
3. A system of character affecting consequences that can result in failure at the story goal.

Without the possibility of failure, I'm not interested.
Without multiple difficulty levels, I get serious cognitive dissonance.
Without enforcement of setting tropes, there's no point to using that ruleset for me.
I've never seen a minimalist game hit all three. I've run a number of relatively light games that do... GW's Judge Dredd comes immediately to mind.

Also, the only story-point that's a dead end, in my opinion, is a TPK or TPA (Total Party Arrest), and the latter only because I really don't like running active prisons as a setting.

 

[overgeeked]

I need three things:

1. enforcement of setting tropes.
   1. this includes character creation
   2. this includes suitable abstractions
2. action resolution using randomness and multiple difficulty levels
3. A system of character affecting consequences that can result in failure at the story goal.

Could you expand on these and explain what you mean a bit? Specifically 1.2 and 3.

 

[Composer99]

So, I do wonder, by "need" do you mean "enjoy"? (And sorry if this has come up in the thread already.)

Because to my mind, how many rules I would need to feel like I am playing an RPG depends on what kind of gameplay experience the RPG is trying to engender. If I'm sitting down to play 4e D&D, I expect to have a pretty heavy ruleset - because the careful manipulation of character powers and the turn-by-turn re-evaluations of optimal activity are part of the fun of that game. If I'm sitting down to play B/X D&D, by contrast, I expect to have a very light ruleset. But either would be satisfactory in terms of need.

In terms of enjoyment, if my experience in 4e is any indication, I would have to say I'm somewhere between Moderate and Heavy. I enjoy the amount of crunch 4e provides, but also enjoy that it is streamlined relative to 3.X.

All that is to say, the heaviness of the ruleset that I enjoy is not the same as what the ruleset needs in order to fall within the RPG category of games, and I feel like perhaps the enjoy framing might be more suited to the question at hand?

 

[GMMichael]

I'm currently writing a calculation spreadsheet to handle the slightly unusual stock manipulation rules of the 18xx game . . .

Please tell me that "stock" is short for "sniper rifle butt stock," or that it refers to the stocks with gaps designed for necks or wrists.

 

[Pedantic]

Please tell me that "stock" is short for "sniper rifle butt stock," or that it refers to the stocks with gaps designed for necks or wrists.

You don't simulate unregulated markets and pseudo-historical train company derivatives on your weekends for fun?

 

[aramis erak]

1. enforcement of setting tropes.

1. this includes character creation​

2. this includes suitable abstractions​

3. A system of character affecting consequences that can result in failure at the story goal.

Could you expand on these and explain what you mean a bit? Specifically 1.2 and 3.

Suitable abstractions: this is very much a setting trope issue.
Let's take Alien (the setting), Alien (the Movie), and compare the current RPG (ALIEN: The Role Playing Game), the older Aliens Adventure Game and it's closest thematic game with official (for the game) stats I'm aware of: Classic Traveller (henceforth, Traveller, or CT).
Alien as a setting is pretty clearly space truckers and marines as protagonists; things we don't know how to do, but the characters do, exist in the setting. We also know there are scientists, and stress leads to lasting traumas. We see two different forms of AI - MU/TH/UR and the Synthetics.
Alien, the Movie, shows us the computer bringing them out of both FTL and Coldsleep with minimal supervision/intervention. We also don't see MU/TH/UR go all HAL-9000 on them, either... it gives them the mission orders, and keeps tabs, but doesn't try to interfere when they decide the "prize" needs to die. We see a synthetic, Ash... He's sympathetic, in both senses - he feels sympathy to a point, and he's a character we can feel sympathy for... We also see the effects of increasing stress on Ripley (Weaver) and Dallas, and even to a point, on Ash. We see people fighting on despite injuries. We see more of this in Aliens.

Traveller has rules for Cryoberths - but they need medical attention to come out safely. Traveller's rules for FTL are plenty workable, but make different assumptions than the indicia released about the setting give, vs the standard ship in Traveller having a parsec range, tho' Traveller's jumps also take less time. Traveller's rules for AI put it at a tech level beyond the rest of the tech we see in the movie or indicia, and aren't particularly robust, either. Oh, and the stats for the Alien? Reticulan Parasite, JTAS issue 4, page 26. In Traveller, it's a nasty parasite, matching the screen... but it's handled as a smart animal. There's no stress rules at all in CT. Traveller's closest thing is Morale - and by the book in core, it's for NPCs only. (Book 4, which is supplementary, adds morale for PCs.) With Book 4, the ACR is a near perfect fit for the Pulse Rifle of Aliens, and by inflicting morale on PCs, can easily replicate the fights from all three core movies... but not the rest of it. Traveller lacks abstractions for social actions. It also lacks descriptive critical injuries. Classic Traveller's interpersonal skills are few: administration, bureaucracy, liaison, steward, and carousing. None of them are "persuasive" in nature. Admin and Bureaucracy are both about getting things done. Steward is how to keep passengers out of the rest of the crew's hair, not convincing them. Carousing allows getting information... but is as much about boozing as info. Liaison is a hybrid of Admin and Bureacracy... so the abstraction is for purposes commercial, rather than actual interpersonal.

Alien: the RPG, (A:TRPG) for its part, makes cryo only need attention when there's injury, tho it does have downsides that CT lacks (MT has them in a magazine article, TNE has them in core). FTL is long and mentally hazardous, plus reduces cargo capacity a lot due to food needs. Travel is usually broken up by a number of stops to perform routine maintenance.
Stress is mechanicalized. Abstracted into mechanics... a little stress lets you exceed your normal limits; a lot breaks the PC in strange ways; further, it has two different stress failure tables, and they're tailored for different regimes of play; I expect another one in the new book, too... The alien from the film is one of several in the core. The Xenomorphs are a clade, not a singular thing. This is different from the movie, but is a known thing in later setting materials. The game can easily also handle all the action in Aliens and Alien³. It can abstract out Ridley getting Newt out from the vents if needed; and the social conflict mechanic can be resolved as a single roll.

The Aliens Adventure Game, (AAG) from Leading Edge back in the early 90's, has excellent (if slow to run sans spreadsheets) gritty combat, but only one flavor of xenomorph; it has other nasty critters to bug hunt, too, but seems to expect importing more from Phoenix Command. Its rule for cryo are more generous than Traveller's or A:TRPG. It has morale rules; I don't recall, and am not going out at 3 in the morning to get the book from the storage, if it has stress rules otherwise. It has a hard 8 LY limit on each jump. It's Xenomorph is almost too hard to kill. It presumes only Marine PCs. It's narrow, it's crunchy as hell, and only combat is handled by mechanical abstraction in any fidelity, but it does have interpersonal skills, and some rules on using them to influence others. Nothing even approaching a full on social combat system.

As for #3? short term injuries, long term injuries, death, and/or insanities are the suitable ones for the Alien setting. Traveller has only 2 of the 4, AAG has 3 of the four. A:TRPG has all four...

In A:TRPG, in one campaign, one PC, entirely without ever facing any xenoform, drove herself to a nervous breakdown. As in, total catatonia. Replacement character followed. For that character, life as a ship's mechanic was too much, and she pushed on until she broke. (The player completely forgot to, or perhaps decided to see what would happen if she didn't, take those rest times to destress.)

 

[pemerton]

Traveller's closest thing is Morale - and by the book in core, it's for NPCs only.

I've always taken morale to affect PCs as well as NPCs (based on my 1977 Book 1).