Hi all I was just wondering if players where fans of rules light systems or more comprehensive rules systems?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my case, it depends on the genre and the tone of the campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever you think about this question, Pathfinder is evidently *not* a "rules light" system. Personally, I like the fact that the PF rules try to codify nearly any situation that may arise during a gaming session.
"Rules Light" systems seem to devolve into DM fiat, all too often.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If people're playing Pathfinder, they're probably okay with more comprehensive rules systems. :P
As for me, I prefer the more comprehensive side of the scale. I find it's less work to change rules I don't like than to make up a bunch that don't exist.
|
As with many people above I come down to: It Depends.
The reason I like Pathfinder and why I've stuck with it so long is that having comprehensive, consistent rules give players the feeling of reliable physics. There is an answer to almost any question they ask and because of that they aren't beholden to the whims of a GM.
If they climb a wall, they know the rule (Make a skill check), they know the DC (it's listed under the rules of the skill), they know what they can do to improve their odds (buy a grappling hook, and a knotted rope, or a potion of spider climb), with the DC low enough they can not fail by 5 or more they can then take 10.
Under a rules-lite system the difficulty to climb a wall might just be determined by the GM's decision that this time there needs to be more drama or tension in the scene. If you have an experienced GM you can trust, that's not a problem. But if you don't, the world can feel inconsistent, breaking immersion and for many they feel unrewarded for system mastery.
On the other hand, when I have a story that doesn't fit into Pathfinder's superheroic fantasy tropes, with common magic items and vast plethora of options I don't want to learn a system as robust to do something different. Starfinder has been a good compromise for Sci-Fantasy, because it's close enough that I don't have to relearn the physics of the universe.
Last year I ran Cypher System, and that was a lot of fun because of the consistency of the rules on the player side, but as a GM you flail a little because you're judging difficulties from 0-10 based on what a "normal" person can do. But that's such a useless measure as to be near meaningless. Since "normal" isn't a thing that exists. Instead I used the real measure which is: "What percentage chance do you want the player's to succeed at the thing they're trying?"
I'm an experienced GM so that's not a huge deal, but for an inexperienced GM? That can lead to wildly varying difficulties for very similar kinds of checks.
I prefer rules heavy for the mechanics of the game, but I strip out a lot of the options (classes, archetypes, etc) to keep that more manageable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like a more rules-heavy system, but in the case of PF, I sure wish those rules were more standardized. 3.0's reliance on d20 + modifiers vs. DC was a huge step forward, but I'd like to see "Abilities ABC cost EFG under circumstances HIJ" and then you could build your own classes, monsters, magic items, and spells within those rules, and have them be more comprehensive and more consistent. And, yes, I know GURPS purports to do that, but it does so poorly by current standards, and spreads itself too thin across genres.
|
|
I like a more rules-heavy system, but in the case of PF, I sure wish those rules were more standardized. 3.0's reliance on d20 + modifiers vs. DC was a huge step forward, but I'd like to see "Abilities ABC cost EFG under circumstances HIJ" and then you could build your own classes, monsters, magic items, and spells within those rules, and have them be more comprehensive and more consistent.
That's why I really love the Resolve system in Starfinder.
I prefer rules heavy for the mechanics of the game, but I strip out a lot of the options (classes, archetypes, etc) to keep that more manageable.
This.
One mustn't conflate rules-heavy with rules-bloat. One allows the GM to adjudicate almost every situation. The other introduces a rule where none is necessary (eg Strike Back or adds layers of excess maths onto a simple mechanic (ie, attack isn't 1d20+BAB+Str, it's 1d20+BAB+Str+WpnFocus+WpnTraining+Bless+Luck+Flank+FromAbove-Shaken and so on) and loads of splatbooks.
Rules-heavy. Rules-light games to me just feel like they'd inevitably get... how to put it, almost politicky. The more it's defined in the rules what I can do and how...
- the less negotiation with the GM in the middle of gameplay, and so the less I feel awkward doing cool things. Jumping onto a flying dragon from the top of a cliff is cool, hypothetically. Holding the game up to ask "okay, this is what I want to do, can I do this and what do I roll" is anything but cool, I feel like a jerk doing that.
- the less questions over godmoding. Nearly no risk of "how much can I describe my character doing within the bounds of reasonableness". I could never stand freeform RP, largely because it felt like the only way to be safe was to have characters bungle everything but the easiest tasks.
- the less chance of favoritism. Less of the GM assuming paladins are going to be more likeable than rogues, or rogues more likeable than paladins, so one player's attempt to sweet-talk the merchant works better just based on a stereotype. And less chance of that flying dragon tackle being easier for the GM's roommate/sibling/SO, or hardest for that guy with the bad reputation because he isn't sure where the boundaries of reasonable are.
- the more informed I am. I may not know if my ranger can climb that cliff, but I can take a guess that a Climb DC would probably be 15-30, and assess if my +11 Climb mod is good enough to risk it. The GM's hiking experience or idea of what influences climbing skill doesn't come into it.
I prefer more comprehensive rules, but at the same time, no rules system can cover everything, so there has to be some winging it at any level.
Like Kaladin, I like to have some idea what the odds of success are before trying. Rules help keep everything consistent, and there's no (well, few) arguments about 'was action X really harder than action Y'.
I disagree, vehemently, with the idea some people have that rules-heavy games have less RP, or rules-light games have more. No system can make you RP, no system can prevent you from RPing. It's based solely on how the group conducts itself. I've seen World of Darkness games, supposedly the 'gold standard' in RPing, be nothing more than Monster Of The Week beatdowns.
I like a more rules-heavy system, but in the case of PF, I sure wish those rules were more standardized. 3.0's reliance on d20 + modifiers vs. DC was a huge step forward, but I'd like to see "Abilities ABC cost EFG under circumstances HIJ" and then you could build your own classes, monsters, magic items, and spells within those rules, and have them be more comprehensive and more consistent. And, yes, I know GURPS purports to do that, but it does so poorly by current standards, and spreads itself too thin across genres.
You want the HERO System.
Well, obviously I'm a fan of Pathfinder, and appreciate both rule heavy and rule light systems (though to be honest, I don't think I'd ever invest in learning something as complicated as 3.5/PF again).
But what's interesting to me is how often even the rule heaviest games like PF actually end up in the realm of GM fiat, because players are creative, unpredictable, and often even crazy. Realistically I've found as a GM I've had to wing all kinds of scenarios because the rules are extensive, but can't cover every possible eventuality.
I suppose the term rules light is a bit of a misnomer (for instance, Blades in the Dark is about 300 pages long) but narrative focused games which specifically say what the GM and players can do in the narrative are actually less open to GM fiat. They're extremely specific on who controls what part of the narrative. In that way, they do a better job of regulating the game than a the traditional D20 games.
It's also really hard to get my non-hardcore gamer friends into PF. 5e has done a really good job of being streamlined and easy to understand, so that's what I run for them.
But... personally I can't deny the joys of building a complex character in PF, nor the thrill of system mastery when you're high level. Different strokes and all that.
Doing one thing all the time isn't interesting. Some things are better with light rules, sometimes you'd rather play with meatier rules. Sometimes thing A is more appealing for whatever reason than Thing B, and sometimes it's the opposite. It's just a feel of the moment thing.
The one thing I'm surprised with is people here whose aversion to rules light systems because they feel like they need to ask permission to do things. My experience with rules light is quite the opposite; I've always played this under the assumption that you can attempt to do anything in these sorts of games, you just rely on the dice to allow you to succeed or fail. If players feel the need to ask permission rather than just taking initiative, that's one thing, but I would suggest taking the initiative in these sorts of things. Experience with improv helps here, I guess.
But for example, when playing "Roll for Shoes", I don't see how the GM's permission is needed for anything. In the spoiler are the complete rules for "Roll for Shoes"-
If the sum of your roll is higher than the opposing roll (either another player or the DM), the thing you wanted to happen, happens.
The number of the d6s you roll is determined by the level of skill you have.
At start, you have only one skill: Do anything 1.
If you roll all sixes on your roll, you can get new skill one level higher than the one you used for the action. The skill must be a subset of what happened to you in the action (Say, Athletics 2 if you were climbing a wall, or Teeth of Biting 2 if you were eating a cake).
For every roll you fail, you get 1 XP.
XP can be used to change a die into a 6 for advancement purposes but not for success purposes.
The actual problem I have with rules light systems is that it can be fairly different to create a tangible sense of meaningful progress long enough to sustain an ambitious story. You can do it, but it's often more work for the GM than doing the same thing with a crunchier system. It feels like organized play would be impossible for light-rules games, and a lot of people do actually like that sort of thing.
In the 70s, D&D wasn't yet a rules-heavy game. I wouldn't really say it was rules-light, but it wasn't far. There were still some tables that felt like you were seven and playing cowboys and Indians.
"Bang! Bang! You're dead!"
"No I'm not! You missed me!"
When I used the word "devolve", that's what I was talking about.
"Rules Light" systems seem to devolve into DM fiat, all too often.
The Dudemeister expressed the same idea here:
Under a rules-lite system the difficulty to climb a wall might just be determined by the GM's decision that this time there needs to be more drama or tension in the scene. If you have an experienced GM you can trust, that's not a problem. But if you don't, the world can feel inconsistent, breaking immersion and for many they feel unrewarded for system mastery.
It's this foolish inconsistency that can quickly become annoying. Sure, I'm ready to accept that some people like to have the results of their characters' actions determined on a spontaneous whim of the moment rather than quantifying their training and investment in being especially good at something or other. But that's not how I butter my bread.
Guess that makes me both a curmudgeon and a grognard.