Hi all,

I'm just interested in what people around here think about rules-lite vs rules heavy. I have always favoured rules lite-giving the player a lot of power in choice-although these days I am leaning towards system heavier games and because of this reason: In rules-light there is a lot of onus on the player-this can be empowering but at the same time arduous. In rules heavy (more than likely pricey commercial products) there is little choice for the players (chargen, levelling up etc.) but you at least are playing a “game” that has already been developed by someone, knowing that balancing issues and all that have already been meticulously though out and it’s like “ok elves in this game are small hairy, fat and almost blind – but that’s the game.”

It’s hard to explain, but I feel that in rules heavy you get the feeling you are playing a “game”-as opposed to making a game, which is the feeling I get sometimes playing rules lite.

O.K. So my question is, and my apologies if this has already been discussed (links appreciated):

- Do players actually like limitations/narrow choice/etc. selecting from predefined lists and charts? Do players like the complete opposite or do most players like somewhere in between?

So you are probably going to say that it depends on what type of game it is right? The game I am developing is historical/fantasy feudal Japan and that’s perhaps where my dilemma lies; historical – rules lite suits these games because they are realistic and we all know how things work in the real world to some degree, hence no need for a lot of complex rules. On the other hand fantasy – because fantasy is a grey area, this is where a more rules heavy approach would be more suited. Also does rules heavy suits a more gamist approach? Rules lite Nar?

Thanks,
Akuma.

Hi Akuma, and welcome to the Forge!

(Wanted to be the first to say this... hee)

I'll leave it to better people to help with 'basic orientation' but there is one thing that strikes me about your dilemma which I'd like to comment on.

It sounds to me part of your concern with 'rules' is more about setting and about how much of the 'game world' is predetermined ('this is feudal Japan - there are highly developed social rules which you must obey or be punished) and how much is in the hands of the player.

IMHO, by choosing a 'feudal Japan' setting, you've already made some pretty substantial choices (or at least, expectations) about the game world. Whether you make the mechanics 'light' or 'heavy' is a much freer choice.

And I would heartily recommend The Riddle of Steel as an example of a 'rules-heavy' game that facilitates (demands even) a Narrativist approach - it's a great game, and very popular here. This is a bit of a guess, but I think you'll like it too...

Regards,

Doug

Hello.

First off, I don't think opinion polls are encouraged at the forge, so I suggest we drift your topic to the more intereasting parts of your post, and that is, what specific parts of a game make rules light/heavy more enjoyable?

You really need to talk more about your game to get a response about what choice is right for you. A very good thing to think about is, what do you want the rules to do? Whatever rules do that in an effiecent amount of time are right.

I disagree with your fantasy vs. history dichomty. Mostly because I never do research for a game, so I'd rather rely on the author's concept of historical accuracy. In a fantasy game, I and the other players are writing this world, we should know what's "accurate" for our world.

On the GNS issue, I would say that you have to look at the process of the rules and how they support a paticular agenda. Look at Exalted. The rules search time is equated as manipulating abstract concepts(Espicially charms) for the benefit of one's character, so in itself works as a Gamist activity, and will lend itself to a Gamist game.

In TROS, I would say that any dealing whatsoever with the Spiritual Attribuites, even without IC Action, is a Narrativist expiereince in itself.

Now, Exalted's Charm system is more complex than TROS's Spiritual attribuite system. But that's not what's important. The important thing is that in both games, when you are dealing with the rules, you are -playing the game- as you came here to play . In a Narrativist game where someone is spending 5 minutes to look up a table for the purposes of choice optimization, he is not playing the same game as he came here to play.

I don't think that rule-light or rules-heavy is that much of a consideration for me. What I really want is rules-elegant: the rules fit together into a coherent whole, and that they match the Setting and Premise of the campaign.

In your case, having the game set in fuedal japan with a fairly rigid social structure and societal roles, I can see (and this hurts a little to say it :-) full-bore D&D3 being a good fit for the setting.

Let me turn around and ask a different question. What is going to make your game better that D&D? Answering that question should give you a pretty good idea of where you want to take your game.

Thanks for the replies all, I have examined them intently.

My topic may have been a little misleading (with light vs. heavy), to be more specific I mean; narrow choices vs. open ended choices. I’m wondering, in people’s experience, have you enjoyed the narrow choices/paths for a character and limitations over a game where you had complete open ended freedom?

But alas, it may be a futile question, because of the setting-as I think you have all alluded to-may demand a ‘chunky’ system with some narrow choices.

D&D3? For christ sake, I don’t want players rolling to take a crap. Lol.

From GNS and Other Matters, which can be found in the Articles section of the Forge (via the links at the top of every page). It is definitely considered suggested reading for discourse on the Forge, and it might help you consider what it is you're really after regarding your interests and desires for an RPG system:

Misunderstandings
A number of code-phrases to describe RPG system and goals have arisen as role-players struggled to match their interests with the spectrum of available games, but most of them lack substance.

* Rules-heavy vs. Rules-light: this dichotomy is vaguely oriented toward high vs. low search and handling time, but it is confounded a great deal with so-called realism and so-called story. (This confusion is a product of the transition design period of 1990-1991, exemplified by Fudge and The Window.) The concept of rules-focus, in terms of goals and modes, has not entered the popular understanding of the hobby.
* Completeness: as far as I can tell, this term relies on as thorough a presentation as possible of all the listed elements, apparently such that Simulationist play of any emphasis can pick and choose which aspects to emphasize, by elimination rather than by creation.