Why simpler - much simpler - is better

[GMMichael]

Right.

Taking this from the top. I don't know about you, but as a child some of my play was about as complex as Calvinball with precedents. Designing worlds, creating stories, and designing elements within those stories is fun. Stop telling people they are having BadWrongFun just because you don't enjoy it.

On the other hand so too is using the dice and the rules as lubricant in what is basically a freeform game. And this seems to be what you are interested in. I have no problem with this idea. It's often my favourite, when I'm not in the mood for high tactics. Now D&D is not set up to do this (sorry, RC and OSR fans. It simply isn't - there's always been far too much logistics involved). You also want a character sheet that can fit on an index card and contain all the things you need to know that aren't basic rules.

So what I believe is that you are playing the wrong game to suit you. I'm going to suggest a list of games below that I think would interest you. They all have two things in common:

1. If boiled down the character sheet would fit on an index card and contain everything you needed (in some cases the official ones don't because they've chosen to spread the things out - but they could)
2. All the rolls made are made using the same system. There are no separate subsystems for combat and the dice resolution system is pretty simple.

So what are my suggestions? Below.

Fate

Suggested first because it's top of the hot games pile right now. Fate Core and Fate Accelerated are the two games in question that have both the most elegant rules and the best description of them. (Older versions of Fate such as Spirit of the Century are a little clunkier). It really is a game where you can turn up with just 4 Fudge Dice/Fate Dice (6 sided, two sides marked +, two -, and two blank), a collection of post-it notes, and wing the whole thing while never ignoring a single rule because the rules of the game are all refined through use. Half the character is made up of freeform characteristics called aspects, and the game plays fast. The rules to Fate can fit on a trifold (and the more modern versions I linked are even more elegant) - and if you want a big setting for Fate, The Dresden Files is pretty awesome.

Powered by the Apocalypse

I'm going to start this with Dungeon World despite thinking that it isn't a terribly good implementation of the rules - this is because Dungeon World is designed to be very like D&D so for your players it will be the smallest jump as the characters and the objectives remain almost the same. The core mechanic in any Powered by the Apocalypse system is 2d6+stat - on a 10+ you succeed, on a 7-9 you succeed with consequences or have a partial success, and on a 6- you fail and the GM makes a "hard move" as something goes badly wrong. This injects uncertainty into the setting because not even the GM plans everything in advance (in fact in DW the GM is told to "Draw Maps, Leave Blanks" - and the other games have equivalent advice). In most PbtA games, you only ever roll when taking a risk like that (Dungeon World has damage rolls as well because it's D&D based). The games are all class-based (meaning it's simpler to play with archetypes, with a setting that you outline in the first session and all including the GM explore in play.

Other PbtA games worth noting are

• Apocalypse World - the game the system itself was designed for. The setting is post-apocalyptic with possible threats including the environment and Mad Max style motorcycle gangs. But again this is discovered in setup and play.
• Monsterhearts - IMO the best implementation of the system. High school teen drama/paranormal romance and it is awesome and very, very immersive (I've had more bleed from Monsterhearts characters than all other games combined). Your gaming group might not be one to introduce it to.
• Tremulus - Lovecraftian horror in a system where any dice roll can fail entertainingly. I haven't actually played it so I'll link to John Rogers.

Cortex Plus

Leverage is the best game I know of for running or playing cons/heists ever. Any roll can produce complications (any 1 in your dice pool), and the system is very light and fast playing. With very solid rules to allow the GM to create a target mark at the start of a session in 30 seconds flat unless they've forgotten the rulebook (which they might because they won't need to refer to it for anything else). Also in the family:

• Smallville - teen action drama starting off by creating a massive relationship map between the PCs that makes the setting you are actually playing in. Fast playing and very much more interested in the questions "Who are you?", "What do you want?" and "Who do you serve and who do you trust?" than in "What can you physically do?"
• Marvel Heroic Roleplaying - the only game I've played that makes comic book supers actually work like comic book supers.

One offs

Those were the three families of games I'd recommend you look at. But there are plenty of other games that don't fit into families. Here are some of them.

Fiasco: What can I say against Fiasco? Ah, yes. It isn't immersive. Instead it's an awesome storytelling engine to create a heist gone wrong in 1-3 hours. How does it work? Watch Tabletop. And then remember that that's a good game of Fiasco but not an especially awesome one. Right now it's in my rotation as the game I bring out whenever we're missing people.

Dread: The only mechanic in this horror RPG is a jenga tower. Which leads to awesome levels of tension in this one-shot game. Instead of a short paragraph I'll turn things over to Piratecat and the rest of ENWorld.

Mythender: Do you want to play an utter badass beating up Thor? Do you want to roll lots of dice? Then here's a game for you.

Wushu: For all your simple, destructive action movie needs. Who needs realism? Instead Wushu rewards you and gives you more dice (up to a scene cap) for describing more things, meaning that an RPG that's barely twice as long as the Creative Commons license it's released under gets interesting and detailed descriptions out of just about everyone.

Dogs in the Vineyard: A simple game where everything you need fits (as always) onto an index card, Dogs is a game about how far you are willing to go and how much you are prepared to risk before backing down. It's designed to produce escalations with both sides trumping each other until either someone gets shot or someone backs down. And do it again and again. Fast, furious, intense.

Grey Ranks: From the fast, furious, and intense, Grey Ranks is about being child soldiers in the Warsaw Uprising. Simple, elegant, and almost everyone's going to be on a tragic story arc in this pre-plotted game where you can't control the major events. See also Montsegur 1244 in which everyone is a Cathar and in the end you need to decide between you who burns, who recants, and whether one of you escapes into the night.

(I'd also nominate My Life With Master - but don't actually own a copy.)

Anyway, I'm fairly sure that in there somewhere is a game that will suit you pretty well. Have a look round and see what you think. And happy gaming!

Wow - Neon, do me a solid and read over my homebrew, attached here:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?349392-Modos-Rulebook-the-real-time-editing-thread
I'd like to know what you think, since you seem to have a broad exposure to different systems.

If it is expensive for the person to buy a few books then they probably should try to find a different hobby. I love sailing, but it is an expensive hobby that while I could afford to do it I would not be able to do other things like own a home or a car. We all make choices on what to do with out finances and our time.

C'mon now. Playing an RPG shouldn't cost more than one book and a set of dice. This ain't no WoW here, that costs, what, $60 per expansion and a monthly $10 as well?

Simplicity is a double edged sword. Don't get me wrong I am all in favor of simple games, my current game is only a few pages of rules and works jus t fine, but simple games tend to lack staying power.. I like hooks upon which I can hang my imagination. It's daunting when 'you can attempt anything' is the premise of play. As both a player and DM a game needs enough rules to be engaging.

Yup - hooks (i.e. rules) can bolster the imagination. But if they're poorly conceived, cough::warlocks::cough, they'll just drag an RPG down.

By the way Meatboy, since you haven't turned me down for doing some art for my homebrew yet, I'm still holding my breath!

 

[Meatboy]

[MENTION=6685730]DMMike[/MENTION]

I dunno I love the idea of warlocks if not exactly the implementation. A simple " I blast stuff with raw magic" guy has a certain appeal to me. Like a fighter type for the caster crowd.

As for art I can probably put something together but I'll need some hooks.

 

[Jhaelen]

I don't know anyone else who plays with nothing but a blackboard, chalk, and a d20. I don't find people outside my gaming group who sit down outside with paper and coins and a lantern and just play. They never do. They need books. Not one, but many, books plural, full of instructions to tell them how to use their imaginations. They also need pots of dice, and miniature figures, and character sheets - oh, the character sheets they need.
[...]
I play to have an active, immersive, aesthetic, creative experience. I want to be taken away to another place, another time, and explore the beauty, and danger, and terror, and adventure and romance and glory and awe of another world.

For me, that is the whole idea of roleplaying.

Well, the thing is, you seem to prefer ignoring the 'G' in RPG. You describe roleplaying, but not playing a roleplaying game. It's that game aspect that demands rules to govern the roleplaying experience. Once you get beyond mere roleplaying you need rules in order to turn it into a game that is more than just playing make-believe.

Personally, I enjoy the game aspects in roleplaying games. I enjoy limitations because they fuel my imagination. If I could simply do anything I wanted, I would quickly run out of steam and couldn't help but feel it's all rather pointless. Rules are also extremely important for one of the key incentives in RPGs: improving your character and watching it get more powerful, the longer you play it. There may be a few rpgs without much character development in them, but they are in the minority and usually not something I am interested in. It's something I need to get a sense of accomplishment.

 

[Janx]

Seconded, but with the modification that it be called an "EGG."

Holy crap, this game is off the scale! Quick, hazmat suits for everybody!

I think the OP missed a point with some tricky wording. the rules in an RPG have nothing to do with enabling imagination. You can think of pink elephants just fine with or without rules.

RPG Rules are about REGULATING the imagined experience. Totally different aim. Without rules, you as a player can do ANYTHING. Including things that don't jibe with verisimilitude or even fairness.

Rules are what put limits, guidelines and provide direction on how the "let's pretend" session is supposed to go.

Now with that understanding in place, there's nothing wrong with the OP's thesis title, that perhaps some games have more rules than may actually be needed for the purpose of regulating the imagined experience.

 

[Neonchameleon]

"To a degree?" Are you saying there's some sort of absolute measurable yardstick of RPG goodness that also exists? What unit of measurement does it use? (I vote for "Gygaxes," if it doesn't have a name yet.)

The degree that they aren't is called the F.A.T.A.L. Scale. An absolute measurable yardstick of RPG goodness is impossible - too many people are looking for too different things. But some things are just wrong.

Holy crap, this game is off the scale! Quick, hazmat suits for everybody!

I think the OP missed a point with some tricky wording. the rules in an RPG have nothing to do with enabling imagination. You can think of pink elephants just fine with or without rules.

RPG Rules are about REGULATING the imagined experience. Totally different aim. Without rules, you as a player can do ANYTHING. Including things that don't jibe with verisimilitude or even fairness.

Rules are what put limits, guidelines and provide direction on how the "let's pretend" session is supposed to go.

Now with that understanding in place, there's nothing wrong with the OP's thesis title, that perhaps some games have more rules than may actually be needed for the purpose of regulating the imagined experience.

I don't think the OP did. Because rules are about more than one thing. You're right that Regulating is one of the primary purposes of rules. Off the top of my head, a non-exhaustive list includes:

• Communicating
• Regulating
• Inspiring
• Evoking
• Enhancing
• Being inherently fun

Communicating

Communicating is the single most important part of an RPG ruleset. They enable and facilitate communication about how you your characters and your shared imaginary world, containing detail that is at least semi-objective. I can tell things looking at a character sheet in a system I like that would take a lot of skilled writing to tease out, because the sheet shows me rather than telling me if I understand it. I'd call Fate a stand-out game at this, with the aspects it uses (and also point out Marvel Heroic Roleplaying in an entirely different way - and Fiasco in a third).

Regulating

I'll leave your description here. It's all true - it's just one puzzle piece.

Inspiring

Ever looked at something and thought "I want to play one of those"? Or "I want to play there"? You were inspired by the game. And without some form of inspiration there is no game.

Evoking

"F**k I'm on one hit point." "Look at that tower. Do I dare to pull?" The rules themselves can evoke emotions that are like those of the character. On the failure point they get the "Wtf? What can I do now?" *rummage through list of rules* Evoking emotions is certainly one purpose of a ruleset like Dread with the Jenga tower.

Enhancing

Some games, and ones I'd list as standouts include Rolemaster, Cortex Plus, and the Powered by the Apocalypse games (like Dungeon World) are good at creating complications and narrative description at narratively appropriate times that without the ruleset might not arise. The PbtA games are especially good at this for would-be freeform roleplayers because they have the right rhythm to disrupt freeform games as little as possible.

Being fun to play in their own right

This is a personal thing.

But I've missed a few, and I'm well aware of that (suggestions welcome). What the OP seems to want is games that are heavy on the communication and enhancement, light on the regulation, and that get out of the way so you can focus on the fiction. Which is why I gave the list I did.

 

[Janx]

But I've missed a few, and I'm well aware of that (suggestions welcome). What the OP seems to want is games that are heavy on the communication and enhancement, light on the regulation, and that get out of the way so you can focus on the fiction. Which is why I gave the list I did.

Nice list that covers stuff I neglected.

The way the OP wrote his opening salvo was giving credit or responsibility to the rules that didn't seem aligned right. I think you've expounded on that well.

I would not want to sit around the table with my friends and play "let's pretend" without some regulations on what each person can do. Otherwise, it'll quickly get to I auto-win because I imagine my self succeeding at everything.


I'd also posit, that it might actually be hard to get 5 adults to sit down at a table to play "let's pretend" But if I box it up with a game called D&D, they'll belly up without feeling self conscious about it.

 

[Isida Kep'Tukari]

Indeed, there are pros and cons to both sides of the story.

I've been playing 3.0/3.5 D&D since it came out, and I can whip up characters easily and know most relevant rules (or where to find them) off the top of mye head. For me and my friends with a similar degree of knowledge, we can use all the myriad of choices and even the constraints to makes really interesting characters and play them with relish.

There are many times, particular during character creation, when I like nothing better than to spread out five or six books and put together the nuts and bolts of a really interesting character. For me, that's a lot of fun and an important element of the game. The character creation process in crunchy games like D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, Shadowrun, or HERO system is part of the appeal. I also like being able to use those character options and the (oft complex) rules to figure out what to do, which requires both rules knowledge and a great deal of creativity. In these games, the rules give me a springboard to do all sorts of fun and interesting things.

And then there are games like Savage Worlds, Numenera, Mouseguard, or Dresden Files, where rules are very light and you have come up with a lot more out of whatever cloth your GM provides, and what you bring to the table. You have more... I hesitate to say "freedom," but you have more leeway to do things entirely outside of the box. These games are also a lot of fun, but while rules-heavy games require more specific knowledge and reading, rules-light games require more free-form storytelling, almost improv. This is wonderful if you're good at thinking up things on the fly and you have a GM ready to power the story.

Each sort of game has its strengths and weaknesses. Both games require creativity, mutual story-telling, and trust in both your fellow players and your Game Master. A rules-heavy game has backups in the form of its many rules, structure for both the players and the GM, which can be used both as places to start building ideas and as a series of checks and balances to help prevent abuses of power within the game. (Not perfectly, as evidenced by many, many threads on this board, but the rules are there to be used or argued over.) A rules-light game is often easier to learn, faster to play, with less constraints on the characters, but may need a strong group of players and a strong GM so that no one gets left behind. (Shyer or more analytical players, without rules to back up their decisions, may sometimes find a more free-form game frustrating.)

 

[evilbob]

Everyone has their preferences.

Sometimes we play what I call "freestyle" games - i.e. there are no rules. At all. These are what I grew up playing and are still some of my favorite games ever. It takes a good GM to run them, though.

Sometimes we play a game whose name I can't say because it will just make people mad, but that I believe to be the exact opposite of freestyle - i.e. over-the-top rules and constant constraints, with nearly no role-playing at all. But it's still fun to play.

The more rules you make for your system, the more you can sell people. Just an observation.

I haven't read the whole thread but I LOVE posts like the one by [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION], where you get a great short list of similarly themed systems with some brief evaluation. Thanks for that!

 

[Aethernaut1969]

If you're looking for simplicity and reliance on player imagination might I suggest Numenera? One book, one character sheet (not plural), 4 dice, a pencil and paper. It's not for everyone, but if you're looking for story over tactics and rules lawyering it's great!

I'm currently gaming with two groups that use the Cypher system, one playing Numenera and the other playing a homebrewed Shadowrun campaign driven by Cypher. It's been some of the most satisfying roleplaying I've done in years.

 

[Dethklok]

I disagree that Fate and Fiasco aren't big by the standards of the RPG market...If it's awards you want to signify notability, Dresden Files basically swept the boards the year it came out.

(I played a campaign of Dresden Files; it's horribly complex. I haven't finished working through your list yet, but some of the others you named are also pretty complicated.)

No costs? You don't have to buy a computer, hiking boots, clothes, pay for internet service, pay to access academic journals, buy books, purchase computer programs, or any any other costs related to the hobbies? I find that very hard to believe.

Then don't. But I get computers for free, hike in street clothes, access academic journals as part of my (tuition free) university enrollment, and so on. Of course my shoes might not wear out quite as fast, and I might not need to eat as much food, if instead of pursuing an active lifestyle I maintained a state of hibernation in between tasks.

Not to jump on an (apparently) kindred spirit a second time, but hiking isn't likely to be free either, unless by hiking you mean walking around your neighborhood.

Well, it's free for the moose that walk around my neighborhood.

There are different aspects of 'simple' to be considered in all of this. The rules of chess are fairly simple, but actual play can be very complex. Thats the beauty of a well designed game- to put the complexity into the parts of the game that are interesting and leaving them out of areas that would just be tedious.

I enjoy simplicity in rules that still allow for complexity in play. Simplicity, much like complexity, for its own sake isn't very useful. Tic-tac-toe is very simple but thats hardly a virtue because the game isn't that interesting.

In games powered by the imaginations of the participants, such as rpgs,maintaining simplicity in rules while allowing for complex play is one of the strengths of the medium. That was the lightning in a bottle that caught on like wildfire and spawned a new hobby.

The secret to maintaining that simplicity/complexity formula is to not make a rule unless it is needed, and to make sure the contributions of the game participants (contributions here being meaningful ideas and actions that are created in play) are central to the resolution of play. Complexity is therefore as prominent as the participants want to make it, and not tediously added by a non-participant such as a well meaning overzealous game designer.

I think you are wise.

Simplicity is a double edged sword. Don't get me wrong I am all in favor of simple games, my current game is only a few pages of rules and works jus t fine, but simple games tend to lack staying power.. I like hooks upon which I can hang my imagination. It's daunting when 'you can attempt anything' is the premise of play. As both a player and DM a game needs enough rules to be engaging.

Hey Meatboy! A few pages of rules is enough to be engaging.

The degree that they aren't is called the F.A.T.A.L. Scale. An absolute measurable yardstick of RPG goodness is impossible - too many people are looking for too different things. But some things are just wrong.

Thank you. I decided against trying to make this exact argument, considering the way gamers are wedded to the diplomatic notion that all games are created equal. But let's face it: Some games were created to be called F.A.T.A.L.

If you're looking for simplicity and reliance on player imagination might I suggest Numenera?

Thanks; I'll take a look!