QuoteOriginally Posted by finarvyn
I was having a similar discussion with my sister the other day. I've been playing OD&D since the 1970's, she RPGs since the late 1990's.Our conclusion was that "rules light" sets tend to be about options whereas "rules heavy" sets about limitations.

What this means is that the original rules (mostly light) gave some guidelines and then the player's creativity took over and he or she could attempt anything he or she might imagine, whereas modern rules sets (mostly heavy) tend to spell out rules for everything and a player tends to check lists to see what they can do and if it's not on the list they often don't try it. My favorite RPG rules sets are OD&D and Amber Diceless, neither of which requires a lot of time to understand but both of which allow for me to be as creative as I like.

Like Gronan, I think that 400+ page rules sets make me sad. I really don't want to read all of that stuff, and I certainly don't want to have to learn it. What I want is a simple set of guidelines that, combined with creativity and imagination, can be used universally to have fun. When rules sets resemble textbooks, gaming becomes homework.

I agree with you, but a consistent problem that I have is that my players prefer 400 page rule books, especially if they are in full color and full of character options and widgets to play with in chargen and character advancement.  I have a hard time selling my players on a campaign with a rules lite system from a little black and white book with mediocre art from a small press or fringe company.

Part of the problem, I think, is that I handle 90% of the rules at the table and my players aren't really interested in learning rules beyond the cool bits that affect their character. They have a perception that more rules must be better.

The other part of the problem is that my players are more comfortable combing through books for character ideas and inspiration then they are in coming up with concepts from whole cloth.  A rules lite system can do anything a crunchy system can do, and more, but they demand greater player creativity and imagination.

My players perceive 3.5, or pathfinder, GURPS 4, or WFRP 2, to be superior games before they even play them (ooh look, shiny!) where I prefer games like Swords and Wizardry, BoL, TFT, and BRP for the reasons you mentioned above.  It is a problem we have as a group and I wonder if anyone else has the same experience.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;888331Nice to see I'm not the only one who sees it that way.

And as a young friend said after I converted him from 3.5 to OD&D, "I like the way that I say 'I want to sneak up behind him and knock him out,' you roll the dice, it either happens or it doesn't, and we get on with the damn game."

What I say is

"Play X for your fantasy campaign if it has the kind of detail you want. But it not required or necessary, it works for you because that how you think, or it has what is important to you. But it is neither better or worse than anything else out there. What you need to focus on as a refereee is your campaign and whether the rules you use work well for adjudicating what your players do.  if they don't change them or ditch them. If they do, then you are good.

Quote from: CRKrueger;888338Which has nothing to do with the point that the Game Designer has nothing to communicate to the player about the campaign. Ever.

Really? I think the game designer has a lot to communicate to the player. Little things like how to generate a character, how combat can be expected to be resolved, how skills and powers work. It's why as a GM I am constantly after my players to RTFM. The better they know the rules the less energy I have to spend on explaining mechanics and the more I can spend on actually running the campaign.

The game designer also has a fair bit to communicate about the campaign. Every game design has underlying assumptions about the way the world works. These will effect how a campaign is played. D&D's (in)famous Vancian magic system creates a hardwired set of "this is the way magic works" settings for any campaign using the D&D rules. A sword doing 1d8 damage and monster having 1d8 hit dice provides a rough approximation of how many sword blows it will take to kill a given monster. A 1HD Orc is very different to a 14HD Giant.

If the Game Designer never has anything to communicate to the Players then the players need never read nor worry about learning the rules. The players need only tell the GM what they want to do and the GM can handle the rest. This also makes it entirely the GM's responsability to do things like communicate to the players how effective a sword is as a weapon, how spell casting works, etc.  

If you want to tell me that spellcasting rule mechanics have no bearing on the campaign then let me show up to your next D&D game and play a completely form spell caster whose magic does what ever I say it does, because the game designer has nothing to communicate to the players about the campaign. How magic works is both a campaign design and a game design.

Quote from: Madprofessor;888345I agree with you, but a consistent problem that I have is that my players prefer 400 page rule books, especially if they are in full color and full of character options and widgets to play with in chargen and character advancement.  I have a hard time selling my players on a campaign with a rules lite system from a little black and white book with mediocre art from a small press or fringe company.

I use Champions/Hero System to run superhero campaign. Because I live in rural northwest Pennsylvania I can count the number of people on my hand to actually know how to design a character using the Hero System.

So what I do is have them explain their superhero as if it is a wikipedia article on the guy. Well maybe not in that much detail, but I have conversation about. Then I translate that into Hero System mechanics. Sometimes I get something that is difficult to translate but because Hero System has a good design I am able to get it exactly how the player described it.

For your situation pin your players down to exactly what they want for their characters in natural language. Resist them trying to say (I want +5 to hit) in favor of I want to be a expert duellist with a rapier.

Armed this information you can take one of those "little black & white books" and give them what they want. Unless of course what they are asking wouldn't exist in the setting you are trying to make.

Again if the difference between .22 ammo and .357 ammo is important then you will not get away trying to use a lite rules system that abstract that level of detail. At which point either you find a compromise ruleset that works for you and them. Or say "Look I don't want to run a campaign with that much detail."  Or pin down what the exact difference is and find that just adding a +1 damage modifier is sufficient.

What I am trying to get across, is start with your campaign first. It has a reality of its own. If something your player wants to do or be would logically exist in that reality then make a way for it to happen with your chosen rules. Keep in mind that a good deal what the player want can be easily handled as a note on a piece of paper.

One difference the Majestic Wilderlands with GURPS and MW with Swords & Wizardry is that all those advantages and disadvantages become notes.

The moment you deviate from RAW in any way you become a Game Designer. This is simple truth. The Game Designer is the one who designs the game. Every game design effects the campaigns that are and can be run with that game design. I cannot run a "Demons are taking over the world with the aid of their undead minions" game with RAW Classic Traveller. That game design has no rules for demons or the undead. I can add rules for them, at which point I take on the role of game designer as well as campaign designer. If my players are to interact with the new demons and undead rules I need to communicate at least something of how they interact with the player facing game rules and the player facing portion of the campaign.

Game Designer communicating with the Players about the Campaign. QED

Quote from: DavetheLost;888348Really? I think the game designer has a lot to communicate to the player. Little things like how to generate a character, how combat can be expected to be resolved, how skills and powers work. It's why as a GM I am constantly after my players to RTFM. The better they know the rules the less energy I have to spend on explaining mechanics and the more I can spend on actually running the campaign.

All those things reflect what the designer think the reality of the setting or genre ought to be. If that how you designed your setting then you are set. If not then you will have issues because as you stated what you want to do is actually run your campaign not what the designer thinks your campaign ought to be.

Quote from: estar;888344It doesn't matter how small the difference is, what mattes whether the referee and the players consider it to be important. It all about personal preference. There is no correct amount of detail.

I will say that for a given level of detail some rule systems are easier to use than other. For example Chivalry & Sorcery vs GURPS. C&S in my opinion is as detailed as GURPS when it comes to running medieval fantasy but has a much worse design. If I was going to run a campaign with that level of detail I would use GURPS over C&S.

While I think most would agree with me, there is a caveat. Everybody thinks different. So for some C&S would be the preferred way to go because it works with how they think when it comes to medieval fantasy.

Well yes it's a bit relative, but nonetheless the smaller the difference the less likely it is to matter to players. Specially if the players are always the same as is the case within a certain gaming table. In such a case personal preference becomes a constant. Is it possible to dial in detail as required or are players required to go through the motions to resolve something to a degree of detail that is not relevant at that moment.?

On the c&s. There is also the issue of habit and even if GURPS may seem better for me the required learning curve may keep me with C&S.

Quote from: estar;888352All those things reflect what the designer think the reality of the setting or genre ought to be. If that how you designed your setting then you are set. If not then you will have issues because as you stated what you want to do is actually run your campaign not what the designer thinks your campaign ought to be.

True. This is why I try to pick rulesets to run that are in harmony with the style of campaign I want to run.

I ran a brief Edge of the Empire FFG Star Wars game quite succesfully for a group who were meh at best about Star Wars because the game fit well with the sort of cinematic, rough around the edges Space Opera campaign we were looking for. I don't think Age of Rebellion or Force and Destiny would have worked as well for this group because those games focus on the wrong aspects of Star Wars.

I had to drop our The One Ring game after the second session because the assumptions of the game designers about the style of fantasy that the game did were very different to what the players wanted to play. TOR mechanically supports a very Tolkienesque style. The further players deviate from playing characters like the ones Tolkien wrote about the more they end up fighting against the mechanics. The game just didn't work for the sort of fantasy we wanted to play.

I see the interaction of mechanics with campaigns coming up repeatedly in the many threads across the gaming forums about Cubicle 7's newly announced Middle Earth D&D. One of the big points of debate is can D&D game mechanics be used to emulate Middle Earth campaign design. Of course there is accompanying debate about just what D&D core mechanics are, how might they be changed, and what exactly defines Middle Earth campaign design.

Quote from: DavetheLost;888359what exactly defines Middle Earth campaign design.

As there is a thread devoted to D&D and C7's Middle Earth I won't get into that.

I will add that when it comes to campaign design for a specific setting, like Middle Earth, that the players will do whatever it they are capable of doing even if it appears to violate the spirit of the original novels.

This is because novels (LoTR in this case) are a narrow window into the imagined life of the author's worlds. Because Middle Earth in many ways follows the way our world works (and other ways doesn't) means that character in theory have the full range of emotions, motivations, and options in Middle Earth as they do here in a comparable situation.

The characters can be totally plausible within the context of Middle Earth with consistent motivations but still make the Middle Earth campaign completely different than anything that Tolkien wrote. They could be jokesters making fun of everything making the whole thing feel like a comedy. Or they could be act like murder hobos indiscriminately slaughtering left and right.

This of course drive some batshit crazy as "not being Middle Earth" which is wrong because while Tolkien never focused on those things in his novels it is implied by how he built his world. This is compounded by the fact he lavish a ton of work on fleshing out the detail of his history trying to give ME it own sense of reality. And one thing he doesn't do it make humans in ME some type of mind controlled zombie acting contrary to normal human motivations. So somewhere there in ME there are people who are comedians and who are murder hobos.

A ME referee need to be prepared for that and think how would the culture and inhabitants respond and adjudicate accordingly.

QuoteOriginally Posted by CRKrueger
A game book, if written well can be (but isn't always) a conversation between the Game Designer and the Game Master. Then the Game Master says "Thanks, I'll take that under advisement." and brings the game to the table, at which point the rules serve simply to facilitate conversation between Game Master and Player.

At no point do (or indeed ever should) the rules serve as conversation between designer and player, and the designer never has anything to do with the campaign. The campaign is what happens at the table, and designer intent means nothing.

I have to agree with this - for my table at least.

The GM filters and tailors the rules for his campaign.  In an RPG, the rules are not a triangular dynamic between designer, GM, and players. They are tools to be used by the GM to facilitate the campaign.  The designer says "this is how we do it, what do you think?" to the GM, and the GM interprets those suggestions. The players can make recommendations to the GM as well, but it is not the designer's campaign. A good GM will listen to his players, but it is his responsibility to adjudicate, modify, and create the rules for the campaign. The designer has no authority over the GM that the players can use.  RAW are only frameworks or suggestions for the GM to consider, they are certainly not sticks to be used by the players to beat the GM into submission.

Unless you are playing burning wheel, I guess.

Quote from: Lunamancer;888100Not really. Some people prefer the perceived benefits of a rules-heavy approach, and are willing to tolerate the perceived drawbacks of a rules-heavy approach. Nobody actually sets out to be burdened by rules.

Wrong, some people do prefer rules-heavy just because engaging the rules is fun to them.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;888168RPGs are mostly Mother May I games where one of the players badly presents a story of some kind to the other players who are just there because they are not socially capable of being in any other groups.

I'd weep for the GMs and groups you have played with, but it's just too funny not to laugh instead:D!

Quote from: CRKrueger;888300Snacks don't factor in at all, because I can bring my own.

If you've never gone to a session because the GM makes great pancakes, you don't know what you're missing;)!

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;888174What makes pizza is crust, not cheese or sauce.

Movies are all about the script, not the acting or the direction.

Saurondor and Dave, you guys have been answering those questions yourselves by talking to Estar.

The campaign, by definition, is what happens at the table with the GM and players.  The game designer simply creates rules that describe processes.  These processes can create default assumptions, but the game rules are nothing more than a theoretical model.

You might find a game in which the proposed assumptions the designer provides lines up 100% with the campaign you want, but I've seen that happen...never.

There's always a difference, there's always an alteration, some things get used, some things get changed, some things get axed, sometimes minor, sometimes major.

You always play the campaign the GM and players create.  Even if the table agrees to play 100% by RAW, that's still their choice (remember the Rush song).  The designer has nothing to do with it, nothing to communicate to the player, because even if the GM says "Make up your character according to pages 15-30 in the PHB", without any alterations at all, it's still the GM who is saying that.

It might seem like picking a nit, but it's key to the point being discussed here.  The campaign is the actual specific and unique implementation of a theoretical model, divorced from the designer completely.

Rules as written are a template to build the rule framework at your table on.

You don´t need them strictly seen, but as they are freely available to everyone to reference, they are a very nice tool and support, which would be much more messy without them.

And many (but clearly not all) gamers seem to like to have them at hand.

Quote from: Simlasa;888199Maybe, but not in a 'Oooh! Look at meeeee!' sort of way. They're clever like a good plumber or bricklayer... vs. a mime pretending to be trapped in a box. They don't care if you notice how clever they are.

A mime is never clever.