Quote from: Tod13 on April 02, 2024, 07:51:36 PM
We play tested Barbaric! 2E. It was so much fun. We loved the magic system - slow and dangerous.

-Tod

Thanks and it seems interesting.  As a fan of Barbarians of Lemuria, I'm curious to see how it differs from that game given their similarities both in genre and core mechanics.   I'm watching an indepth youtube overview right now but it hasn't covered the magic system yet.

Quote from: RNGm on April 02, 2024, 06:55:49 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 02, 2024, 02:47:16 PM
Lol!  Well, it's the consequence of RPG "theory" and theory-crafters, I think.  When I first started playing in the 80s, we didn't care whether our mechanics were unified or our games gave everyone a share of the "spotlight."   We cared if they were fun.  Once you spend too long plotting the journey, you tend to forget the destination...

Yes, yes, I know, Grandpa.  You had to walk uphill year round in the snow just to attend the game and you didn't have dice because throwing marked caltrops on the floor is REAL immersion otherwise you're just storygaming that injury result!    Us 90s gamers don't know how easy we had with our unified games with coherent rulesets... 

Well, we didn't have dice, because  the first basic boxes couldn't get them manufactured in time, so they came with laminated cardboard tokens you had to cut out and draw from a bag.  And unified mechanics suck.

Quote from: RNGm on April 02, 2024, 08:30:07 PM

Quote from: Theory of Games on April 02, 2024, 07:51:53 PM
The reason I ask is you're throwing around terminology but I'm not sure you understand what the terms mean. Like "Story"-based games and "traditional" games. Then posters start throwing around more terms: "mid-crunch" and "lite" and "rules-medium" for example. Before you know it everybody's talking about something else about the same subject. It gets silly.

I think the real question is what kind of play experience is your group looking for. "The game would need to provide (fill-in-the-blank) experience": what's "fill-in-the-blank"? Because posters will spit rpgs at you for pages and pages with none of them being what your group really gets wet over.

I disagree as I think I have a fairly good grasp of the terms but I do admit that there is wiggle room as to which games might be classified under each due to the subjective nature of opinions in general rather than the question itself.  Regardless, I've gotten alot of good examples of games to check out that fit the criteria for others and might also for me so I'd consider that to be a success.   Honestly, I don't see how answering your much more open ended question entirely based on feelings (as opposed to at least partially objective criteria referencing game mechanics like "rules light") would lead to more accurate responses.   Additionally, I don't actually have a group yet and instead am trying to check out games in order to find other players willing to play; as a GM, I find the mechanics matter more to me in that role than as a player.  You're obviously free to disagree.  Out of curiosity, if you were the one looking for a game, how would you answer your own question to give an example of how it would help narrow down the suggestions given?

You gotta know what you're looking for to find it. Good luck though.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 02, 2024, 09:09:53 PM

Quote from: Theory of Games on April 02, 2024, 07:02:59 PM

Quote from: RNGm on April 01, 2024, 09:08:01 AM
Just curious if anyone is playing these types of games here.  While I'm making a purposeful shift away from D&D related fantasy, it seems like OSR type games (which aren't for me personally given my shift) fit into that space.  I don't have alot of experience with them (basically zero in the fantasy genre beyond just reading the rules) but I find myself drawn to them more and more in theory.  I specified traditional traditional RPGs because I'm not referring to narrative/"story" games but rather those with a classic GM/player division, story structure, and defined actions.  I suspect most folks here playing rules light are likely doing so through the OSR route (that I'm also equally unfamiliar with to be honest).   How much longevity is there in these types of rulesets for campaigns?  Do you get enough variety in character options for long term play?  If you are regularly playing these types of games, which ones are you using?

Eh.

The way you described trad games fits something like Apocalypse World or Burning Wheel. Would you agree those are trad games? If not, why?

BW is 3/4s a trad game, with certain pieces that are story game and other pieces that don't really fit any of that, trad or story.  In any case, it's not the trad or story pieces that make it an odd duck, but how highly structured it is, and how abstract some of those structured pieces are.  It also highly curbs the GM's scope with strict rules--because the GM running BW is supposed to be a complete hard case within that structure, and then push the PCs to utter ruin if he can.  Otherwise, the PCs never advance, because you can't get anywhere if you don't fail a lot.

It's weird, but about the only thing it shares with story games is a few bits of narrative currency that wouldn't be out of place in the old James Bond game, player veto over monster stats before the game starts, and the politics of the creators.

The page count is irresponsible but overall seems Luke outdid himself. I'm still poking through it though. What are some of your experiences playing or running it?

Quote from: Theory of Games on April 03, 2024, 05:29:45 AM
The page count is irresponsible but overall seems Luke outdid himself. I'm still poking through it though. What are some of your experiences playing or running it?

It does exactly what it says it does.  If you want that experience with a group of, ideally, 3 to 4 players, and play it as written, it will deliver.  To the degree that you don't want that experience and try to get it to do something else, you'll be disappointed.  I only sort of wanted the experience.  Most of my usual players wanted it less than I did.  So it isn't a good fit for us.  Crane is quite adamant about not changing the game beyond a few specified customization options (which it does fully support).  But I think his presentation of that is a little off.  The fact is, it would not be an easy game to change.  Though I like Mouse Guard better than BW, and like Torchbearer better than both.  I'm glad I played all three, not sorry I bought them, and will probably never play them again.  And that's despite the insistent politics of the authors insuring that I'd never buy anything from them again. Which is fine, as they were all in on Anita Sarkeesian, and made it plain that anyone that didn't agree with them wasn't welcome.  That I can say there is something there in the design despite the mutual loathing should indicate something.

As for particulars, I'll mention one that stands out:  The scripted, abstract combat does what it intends.  It makes the player feel the uncertainty and dread of the fight as they try to read their opponent (GM or player), while serious consequences ride on every round, for the whole group.  And the way the consequences work are like a supercharged version of the various Apocalypse games, in that the most likely outcome is winning with heavy loss.  Then that ties in with the only way to advance it take on hard challenges and sometimes lose.  The outcome is that the survivors are grimdark, grizzled, scarred, and probably a little twisted.  Unless the players are both clever and lucky at just the right moment.  I hate the scripted combat.  It's painfully slow, entirely gamey, doesn't scale well past those 3 or 4 players, and leads to all kinds of jarringly inconsistent actions in the fiction.  So you need to really want what it does deliver to put up with it. 

And yes, there is a simpler version of combat used for most fights, which is even more abstract, to the point of resolving the fight in a roll and narrating the outcome.  Which is strange, because the ranged combat system, on a different scale, for running fights, is kind of in between those two extremes, in a good way.  If all the fights worked like that, it'd be simpler and more fun.  But then that would be 1-minute rounds, and we can't have that in a modern game, can we?

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 02, 2024, 11:11:48 PM
Well, we didn't have dice, because  the first basic boxes couldn't get them manufactured in time, so they came with laminated cardboard tokens you had to cut out and draw from a bag. 

All joking aside, I actually didn't know that but it's good to know.  Is that referring to the white box version or something earlier?

Quote from: Theory of Games on April 03, 2024, 05:29:45 AM
You gotta know what you're looking for to find it. Good luck though.

Thanks.  So far it's going pretty well with people making a bunch of suggestions that fit my criteria.

Quote from: RNGm on April 03, 2024, 09:45:52 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 02, 2024, 11:11:48 PM
Well, we didn't have dice, because  the first basic boxes couldn't get them manufactured in time, so they came with laminated cardboard tokens you had to cut out and draw from a bag. 

All joking aside, I actually didn't know that but it's good to know.  Is that referring to the white box version or something earlier?

Quote from: Theory of Games on April 03, 2024, 05:29:45 AM
You gotta know what you're looking for to find it. Good luck though.

Thanks.  So far it's going pretty well with people making a bunch of suggestions that fit my criteria.

The chits appeared in the Holmes Basic box set.  They would put these in whenever they ran out of dice.  I thought they were in all the books, but this ref page says it would appear whenever they ran out of dice sets.

https://waynesbooks.games/2020/09/28/holmes-dd-the-first-basic-set-1977-80/

I know my Holmes box set had the chits, but i cannot remember if it had dice in there as well or not. 

The overton window has shifted so much that I actually see people on various forums say SWD6 1e is crunchy and mechanical. "Maths is hard".  Even though I'd say it's a brilliant rules light game that can be adapted to various genres. That and Marvel Super Heroes RPG.

The TTRPG hobby has fallen. Millions must roll on the Dark Heresy Critical Hit tables.

Fudge.  It is the ultimate rules-lite framework system to hang your game on.  Some crazy people play it vanilla, which takes a special group of players working with the GM.  But most GMs take the time to create a game that hangs on the Fudge skeleton.  It is one of those systems that will change the way you think about or approach all of your games you run.  Fudge is not FATE - Fate is a set of house rules the kids at Evil Hat came up with based on Fudge and they ruined it with a "skill ladder" and broken "combat" system, and other such horrible non-sense for an "RPG".  Don't confuse the two.  Oh, and it's FREE.

https://fudgegenie.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/fudge_1995.pdf

TheCastleKeeper

Quote from: King Tyranno on April 03, 2024, 11:33:59 AM
The overton window has shifted so much that I actually see people on various forums say SWD6 1e is crunchy and mechanical. "Maths is hard".

I've seen this at the table at cons. Asking players to add up more than 3D6 is often painful.

If I run D6 again, I will switch the dice rolling to Successes instead of Addition.

Players can still handle rolling 6D6 and noting which are 4+ on the dice.

Quote from: tenbones on April 02, 2024, 12:29:43 PM
The categories and subdivisions of the games we play is starting to sound like a fucking Starbucks order...

"I'd like a non-OSR, Rules-Light, Traditional... hold the "T" in TTRPG because we invented RPG, extra immersion and another shot of emulation, and no Forge. K thanks?"

I think that's natural for a 50 year old hobby. So many games have gone in so many different directions and with the PDF / POD explosion thanks to the OSR and the low barrier to entry, we're drowning in glorious options.

And HOW did you not pimp Talislanta to the OP???

I'm actually not sure?  Old rules, but not D&D based?  The only game I can think of that fits this description is West End Games Star Wars.

I technically play it, but I'm fully converted to the even simpler version called Mini-Six Bare Bones. 

My favorite rules-light RPG is the SAGA System used in DragonLance: Fifth Age. It has some odd things that can make accepting the system harder for a more traditionalist role-playing gamer, such as using cards instead of dice, but it is very comfortable once you grok it.

Is Savage Worlds a rules-light rpg?

Quote from: Crazy_Blue_Haired_Chick on April 06, 2024, 10:39:46 AM
Is Savage Worlds a rules-light rpg?

Obviously there's no settled definition here, but I would say no. Any game that has a menu of feats/talents/perks for players to choose from tips over the line into not being rules-lite IMO. SWADE is definitely no Rolemaster, but I couldn't call it rules-lite.

I like the rules lite games out there, and am not a fan of D&D.

To me the definition of a rule lite game is not hard.  Less than 100 pages in length, and a core dice mechanic that is only a few pages of the book.  Heck, some of my favorite games right now are only about 10 to 20 pages long.

As for "Old School" games that fit this, that is a whole different animal.  I can't think of any that fit the bill.  It is why I mentioned Star Wars D6 rules as that game is only 130 or so pages long (1st edition, sometimes considered the "best" version).

I only ever played one game that fits this description, and it's obscure as well.  Palladium Books Advanced Recon.  It is not very long, not very complex, and is old.  Yet, it is set in the Vietnam War, and you play regular (or elite) troopers sent on combat missions.  The game rules are percentile based, and everything uses the D10 dice.  There are no other size dice in that game.  Penalties and Bonuses are also percentiles.  Do you have a rifle skill of 60%, but it is night time and raining, making shots at -30%?  Well, roll that 30% to make the shot.

Still, Old school and rules lite seem a bit incompatible.  If you want modern games that are rules lite, then we got lots and lots of options.  This was a tough one to answer.