Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;951797Not inherently - but many crunchier systems (besides GURPS) tend to be exception based because you don't need to know all of the rules to sit down and start playing - making them more newbie friendly.

Not sure how this is true. Wouldn't a rules light system being more newbie friendly as there are fewer mechanics to understand? 'Just roll this set of dice to do anything' seems easier for a newbie to grasp to me.

Quote from: Voros;951822Not sure how this is true. Wouldn't a rules light system being more newbie friendly as there are fewer mechanics to understand? 'Just roll this set of dice to do anything' seems easier for a newbie to grasp to me.

It depends on the GM I think. New GMs tend to like more crunch, maybe just for more to grasp onto as far as how to handle things, or maybe the perception that more rules = realism or just more mature/advanced. OTOH, an experienced GM can take almost any crunchy system and make it as newbie-friendly as a rules lite game.

Quote from: Voros;951822Not sure how this is true. Wouldn't a rules light system being more newbie friendly as there are fewer mechanics to understand? 'Just roll this set of dice to do anything' seems easier for a newbie to grasp to me.

My apologies for being unclear.

I didn't mean that crunchy exception based systems would be the most newbie friendly.

I meant that a system which is crunchy will be MORE newbie friendly if it's an exception based system than if you're expected to learn everything off the bat.  So - being an exception based system is more newbie friendly than an equally crunchy system which isn't exception based.

Therefore crunchy systems are generally more likely to be exception based to avoid the otherwise steep learning curve, while rules lite games don't gain as much by being exception based as, being lighter, they're easier to learn pretty much all at once.

Quote from: Tristram EvansOTOH, an experienced GM can take almost any crunchy system and make it as newbie-friendly as a rules lite game.

Sort of.  But at a certain point it becomes the GM really playing all of the PCs mechanically while the player(s) just describe the ballpark of what they want to do.  In that case - the player(s) can have fun - but they aren't really even on the learning curve as they aren't learning the system at all.

I see thanks for the clarification.

Quote from: Tristram Evans;951761An exception based system is one in which each rule exists largely independently of the others, is constructed on its own from the ground up. D&D for example, has different systems for combat, for thieving skills, for saving throws, for proficiencies, etc. This is opposed to a system like, say, D6, where there is one overall method of resolution, and each rule in the game is a variation or provides modifiers to that.

I always thought of exception-based systems as "here are the base rules" and "here are the specific rules for, say Bards, that override the base rules, in the case of Bards". The overrides may be in terms of mechanics or in terms of "base rules say 2 actions per phase, but Bards get 3 if there is any music playing".

As others have said, rules lite to crunchy is a spectrum and the only things I think most people agree on is that GURPS is not the epitome of rules lite and Phoenix Command is the epitome of crunch.

To me, rules lite means the game has general rules that the GM exercises in specific situations. That is, for example, the lite rules say something like "the modifiers to difficulty for an action range from -1, -2, and -3" and stop there, with maybe a handful of common examples. It is up to the GM to decide which of the three modifiers applies. Crunchy rules will have (possibly exhaustive) categories covering (almost?) all situations. The GM doesn't have to decide how difficult something is, but simply files it in the appropriate place.

Some GMs prefer rules lite, often claiming more freedom. Some like crunch in pursuit of more realistic gaming, while some is in pursuit of standardization for tournament play.

Some like crunch to standardize expectations. You'll see this response a lot here--clearly set expectations for the kind of game you'll play. If the GM has more latitude, it is easier for the GM to make the game deadlier/difficult or safer/easier. If you have rules describing everything, including "appropriate encounters" for a party, then the expectations between different GMs stays closer together.

In any case, "lite" means something different to everyone.

Quote from: Tod13;951896Some like crunch to standardize expectations. You'll see this response a lot here--clearly set expectations for the kind of game you'll play. If the GM has more latitude, it is easier for the GM to make the game deadlier/difficult or safer/easier. If you have rules describing everything, including "appropriate encounters" for a party, then the expectations between different GMs stays closer together.

I agree - but I'll also add that many (such as myself) tend to prefer stuff middling to crunchy for the tactical depth.  Part of what I enjoy in RPGs in the strategy & tactics involved, both in & out of combat.  If a game is too lite - it doesn't have much or any tactical/strategic depth.  I don't like crunch for the sake of crunch, but I like it when it's used efficiently to add depth to gameplay.

As a TFT- and GURPS player, my perspective is a bit like below, from rules-lite to crunchy:

Whitebox D&D - not enough clear rules for many situations, so it's a starting point and inspiration to make up your own rules or just rulings & imagination.

Dark City Games - this is TFT shorthand, so like 2-4 pages of ultra abbreviated notes. If you know TFT, you can add the rest of the TFT rules you already know, or make up rules and rulings for whatever isn't covered.

TFT Melee & Wizard - Some people still use just this for their rules. For me, it's the basic minimum that can hold my interest in a combat system. A very elegant compact set of rules that nonetheless pack a lot of interesting logic that corresponds to reality fairly well.

GURPS Basic - GURPS without most of the rules, but you could go get rules for anything if/when you want them. Some GURPS GM's run about like this: NPCs just get assigned Strength, DX, IQ and Health in the 8 to 16 range, and skills maybe a bit outside that, and almost everything is just you roll 3d6 roll-under with GM-ruled difficulty modifiers for the situation to determine almost every action's success... damage is roll the weapon damage and subtract armor... and that's about it for 97% of everything that happens. It tends to drive me a bit crazy playing this way under a less-experienced/crunch-minded GURPS GM, though, since I know how different it is to use a map and all the rules. But it's a very simple starting point (more simple than basic TFT except for character generation) and if it's enough to start with, then players can add the other rules as they get used to the basic rules.

TFT Advanced Melee, Advanced Wizard, In The Labyrinth - This is no longer "rules lite" to me. My first and nostalgic favorite system. After a few years of play though, we were ready for GURPS.

GURPS 3e - I tend to prefer GURPS 3e to 4e in many ways (both because it doesn't try to dump all non-human powers into the basic book, and because it doesn't try to simplify things the way 4e does). Definitely a crunchy system, but I think 3e is a clear/clean starting point to understand the system.

GURPS 4e - Tries to streamline and simplify GURPS, but also adds mountains of crap I will never use because it's for psis or supers or whatever-the-heck-else all jammed into the basic list of character abilities. It does at least incorporate some playtested tweaks and things that were very like my 3e houserules, but I find the parts I like are obscured by stuff like the "multiple arms advantage" and rules changes I don't like compared to 3e.  I feel like they were trying to make 4e more accessible, but with all the added "universal" stuff, I find it much harder to deal with the basic books.

GURPS with advanced and optional rules and specialized books & articles. There are advanced rules for many different subjects that can be used with GURPS which take it to crunchy extremes. Martial Arts, Technical Grappling, Low Tech, High Tech, Tactical Shooting, etc etc etc (and not to mention GURPS Vehicles 3e).

Phoenix Command - Bunches of tables required. Impulse system for simultaneous movement & combat. I find this way more crunchy than GURPS because the logic is buried in the table numbers, while GURPS has become second nature by practice and the way the rules have an accessible & consistent logic to them that doesn't require memorizing many numbers or using many tables. Yet we've recently heard that there are people who have mastered Phoenix Command well enough to be able to run it smoothly.

Overall, I think it's important to notice that players can become familiar with rules and then be interested in more, that a GM translate rules to natural language so players don't need to know the rules, and that gameplay involves both rules and rulings, and that a game can be played with very few rules if the GM can fill in the rest with rulings to the satisfaction of the players. So there are all sorts of rule- and play-styles that can work. And I think it helps to present basic playable versions of rules followed by more advanced and optional rules sections that can be explored and used later, or not, as players learn the system and possibly be interested in more.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;951898I agree - but I'll also add that many (such as myself) tend to prefer stuff middling to crunchy for the tactical depth.  Part of what I enjoy in RPGs in the strategy & tactics involved, both in & out of combat.  If a game is too lite - it doesn't have much or any tactical/strategic depth.  I don't like crunch for the sake of crunch, but I like it when it's used efficiently to add depth to gameplay.

Yeah, you're stating it very clearly. I look over some.of the rules lite systems mentioned and I think "it's just not clicking for me." And there it is, tactical depth. Just enough to make interesting choices. And that's what drives a lot of my game design decisions, crass as it sounds.

Quote from: Ashakyre;951928Yeah, you're stating it very clearly. I look over some.of the rules lite systems mentioned and I think "it's just not clicking for me." And there it is, tactical depth. Just enough to make interesting choices. And that's what drives a lot of my game design decisions, crass as it sounds.

Admittedly - I didn't come up with the terminology.  While it's really about video games - the youtube series Extra Credits has quite a few gems for any fledgling game designer.  I'd recommend the complexity vs depth episode for a better explained version of what I'm talking about.

Rules light for me would be things like: Barbarians of Lemuria, Lord of the Rings Adventure Game, Swords&Wizardry White Box,  PDQ system/Jaws of the Six Serpents amongst others.

Rules medium: Savage Worlds, Call of Cthulhu, Star Wars D6, Basic D&D, Open Quest etc.

Heavy: D20/3.5/Pathfinder, D&D4e, Runequest 6/Mythras, 2d20, Rolemaster/MERP, WoD.

Quote from: Teodrik;951932Rules light for me would be things like: Barbarians of Lemuria, Lord of the Rings Adventure Game, Swords&Wizardry White Box,  PDQ system/Jaws of the Six Serpents amongst others.

Rules medium: Savage Worlds, Call of Cthulhu, Star Wars D6, Basic D&D, Open Quest etc.

Heavy: D20/3.5/Pathfinder, D&D4e, Runequest 6/Mythras, 2d20, Rolemaster/MERP, WoD.

I'd say about the same, except RQ6/Mythras and WoD, I'd put in the rules medium category

Quote from: Tristram Evans;951949I'd say about the same, except RQ6/Mythras and WoD, I'd put in the rules medium category

Yeah, I'd put most all of the BRP family of games at the mid-level complexity... with CoC and Openquest being lightest.

Earthdawn is another one I'd put on the heavier end... Shadowrun too.

Quote from: Simlasa;952032Earthdawn is another one I'd put on the heavier end.

Oh dear lord yes. That magic system wrinkled my brain.

How much would you factor in speed of play when it comes to lightness? Is there a one-to-one correlation? I found CoC played lighting fast compared to 1e/2e D&D for instance so I would put that definitely on the light end. But I guess by modern standards it is closer to medium.