Quote from: Voros;952034How 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.

I think that depends partially on the individual and how they classify games.

Generally speaking games I consider lighter play faster, but it is a correlation not a causation (in either direction).

When I designed my game, I designed it to be light and to play fast. Combat is a bit longer than I like and might get longer still once more HP are involved, but I'm still working on that. I may talk with my players about that this weekend.

Quote from: Voros;952034How 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.

I think speed of play and "lightness" of rules are not completely at odds with each other. If the GM, and players are very familiar with the system of a medium/heavy crunch game can be just as fast as a light game.

Quote from: Ronin;952180I think speed of play and "lightness" of rules are not completely at odds with each other. If the GM, and players are very familiar with the system of a medium/heavy crunch game can be just as fast as a light game.

I agree. The GM can also handle the mechanics for players, so things run quickly by not involving conversation about the mechanics, and then players also can not need to know the system at all.

Quote from: Skarg;952195I agree. The GM can also handle the mechanics for players, so things run quickly by not involving conversation about the mechanics, and then players also can not need to know the system at all.

It depends upon the system.  From what I understand - GURPS can be done like that.  (I've skimmed the system - but never played it.)  But I don't see how a game like 4e where the players have to actively use powers could be done that way.

As I've heard it described elsewhere - that's the detached vs immersion spectrum which is how much the players have to interact with mechanics to play.  (separate from the lite vs crunchy spectrum discussed here)

Hardcover books with glossy pages and fabulous coffee table artwork inside make up for whatever the book's rules are about. If you need the book in your lap while playing, the rules suck basically.

If you want an objective answer - even if pulled form out of nowhere - try this:

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2015/12/granularity-ideal-level-of-detail.html

So, what is the ideal level of detail for me?

As you would imagine, the answer is often... seven.

Take B/X ability modifiers, for example; they range from -3 to +3. So, you have seven degrees of Strength, for example (-3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2 , +3). Sure, there might be some difference between STR 10 (+0) and STR 11 (+0), but it is ignored most of the time (and I appreciate the illusion of difference between 10 and 11, but that is a subject for another day).

Curiously, when the Fate RPG was created, the creators played with the idea of having three tiers of "strong", according to Rob Donoghue: The idea was to let a character be strong, stronger or strongest.  But it also allowed someone to be drunk, drunker, or drunkest.

There something very straightforward (and Orwellian, I guess) of using a couple of words when describing all possible human tiers of Strength: weakest, weaker, weak, (ordinary), strong, stronger, strongest.

And of course this:

http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com.br/2007/04/magic-number-seven.html

Consider this in the context of OD&D and how many choices have to be made when a person creates a new character:
- Abilities: 6 (Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Cha). Excellent.
- Races: 4 (Men, Dwarves, Elves, Hobbits). Perfect.
- Classes: 4 (Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Thief). Perfect.
- Alignment: 3 (Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic). Perfect.
- Armor: 5 (leather, chain, plate, shield, helmet). Perfect.
- Weapons (Melee): 13. Too many to consider at once.
- Weapons (Ranged): 5. Perfect.
- Mounts: 5. Perfect.
- Wizard Spells (1st-level): 8. Acceptable.
- Cleric Spells (1st-level): 6. Excellent.

Quote from: Eric Diaz;952275If you want an objective answer - even if pulled form out of nowhere - try this:

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2015/12/granularity-ideal-level-of-detail.html

So, what is the ideal level of detail for me?

As you would imagine, the answer is often... seven.

Take B/X ability modifiers, for example; they range from -3 to +3. So, you have seven degrees of Strength, for example (-3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2 , +3). Sure, there might be some difference between STR 10 (+0) and STR 11 (+0), but it is ignored most of the time (and I appreciate the illusion of difference between 10 and 11, but that is a subject for another day).

Curiously, when the Fate RPG was created, the creators played with the idea of having three tiers of "strong", according to Rob Donoghue: The idea was to let a character be strong, stronger or strongest.  But it also allowed someone to be drunk, drunker, or drunkest.

There something very straightforward (and Orwellian, I guess) of using a couple of words when describing all possible human tiers of Strength: weakest, weaker, weak, (ordinary), strong, stronger, strongest.

And of course this:

http://deltasdnd.blogspot.com.br/2007/04/magic-number-seven.html

Consider this in the context of OD&D and how many choices have to be made when a person creates a new character:
- Abilities: 6 (Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Cha). Excellent.
- Races: 4 (Men, Dwarves, Elves, Hobbits). Perfect.
- Classes: 4 (Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Thief). Perfect.
- Alignment: 3 (Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic). Perfect.
- Armor: 5 (leather, chain, plate, shield, helmet). Perfect.
- Weapons (Melee): 13. Too many to consider at once.
- Weapons (Ranged): 5. Perfect.
- Mounts: 5. Perfect.
- Wizard Spells (1st-level): 8. Acceptable.
- Cleric Spells (1st-level): 6. Excellent.

There's something to be said for how many discreet bits of information a person can track. And yes, it's somewhere I'm around 5-7 or so.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;952203It depends upon the system.  From what I understand - GURPS can be done like that.  (I've skimmed the system - but never played it.)  But I don't see how a game like 4e where the players have to actively use powers could be done that way.

As I've heard it described elsewhere - that's the detached vs immersion spectrum which is how much the players have to interact with mechanics to play.  (separate from the lite vs crunchy spectrum discussed here)

I suppose it would depend on how gamey/disconnected-from-reality the abilities are, and how many there are.

I run GURPS and mostly what players have to deal with (and the mechanics for them) are just ways to have appropriate rules so things work as you'd expect. Though I've had players who didn't know the rules and wanted to start with magic users or psychics or whatever, which did generally work but added a layer of having to explain to them the limits of each of their abilities, also GM-invented abilities where the GM doesn't always share all the mechanics, but in GURPS the mechanics tend to be explained in pretty real-world terms rather than abstract game terms. Generally it seems like even newbie players with spells tend to do pretty well as long as they don't expect their abilities to be some way that is far from how the abilities work in the game.

So yes, if the players are into "immersion" - relating to the game as a situation and choosing what to do based on the description more than game terms, then they may not need to know the rules. If the players are into the game terms, and gameplay being about working the abstract terms of the system, then that would be an issue for players who don't know the rules.

I just tend to be very firmly in the camp that likes strongly "representational" rules in my games. It's also part of why I don't like "narrative" mechanics.

Quote from: Voros;952034How 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.

I generally view speed of play in practice to be a huge factor. Not just page count or how many rules or subsystems, but also the interaction with the rules at the table when playing the rules as written. Thats why , for example, I listed Basic D&D as medium rather than light. I play it fairly light. But playing the game as written, movement rules, detailed encoumberance, combat as written, monster and NPC reactions, minis for positioning and range, rules for dungeon and wilderness exploration etc etc, the game is not that light anymore (I generally play Mentzer BE). Quite a bit of bookkeeping and subsystems to keep track of in practice IMO, but nothing that is actually very complex by itself.

Since people are mentioning GURPS here, I definitely feel we should say Basic Roleplaying as an example of rules light.

Seriously, if we go by the basics (no pun intended) then BRP is probably a good deal simpler than GURPS (having played both), and also a bit faster and maybe slightly more intuitive (not necessarily more realistic though this depends on who you ask, but "intuitive" since most players instantly grasp the percentage chances of BRP. GURPS is also fairly intuitive though).

For a more crunchy version of BRP see Runequest 3rd edition for instance.

The terms 'rules lite' and 'crunchy' are the worst kind of jargon in that they seem to mean something but actuality don't.

Quote from: Ashakyre;951654For me, I try to make sure you can resolve anything in no more than 2 rolls, and try to keep the amount of time spent searching the rule book to a minimum, and make sure there's as little as possible that needs to be tracked, especially time. But I don't really know if that's rules lite. It's just what seems to work for me over the years.

So you know what works for you. Why are you asking this question? Why does being 'rules lite' matter?

Quote from: Ashakyre;951776Thank you. So exception based systems by definition tend to be rules heavier than non-exception systems. So what's a good example of an exception based system on the lighter side?

Magic: The Gathering.

And the fact exceptions were on each card and only mattered when you played them was far more important than any arbitrary lite/heavy dichotomy. It's all about how/when you present rules.

Quote from: Eric Diaz;952275There something very straightforward (and Orwellian, I guess) of using a couple of words when describing all possible human tiers of Strength: weakest, weaker, weak, (ordinary), strong, stronger, strongest.[/I]

Depends what the intent is. Besides, if it were truly #Orwellian, there'd only be one

#StrengthIsWeakness

"So you know what works for you. Why are you asking this question? Why does being 'rules lite' matter?"

It doesn't. This thread taught me my game is better described as rules medium. So now I can present it properly. No one can say "well, he called his game rules lite, but it wasn't, so I was dissapointed." That's all. Also, I just wasn't sure by what people meant by rules lite. It always sounded pretty vague.

Quote from: Teodrik;952499I generally view speed of play in practice to be a huge factor. ....

I think that is a better way to look at it.  Speed of Play.  Especially from a GM's point of view.  Sure it may be fine to roll an attack roll, and parry roll and for a PC (seems simple), followed by a damage roll, but as a GM if you have 10 orcs it is a recipe for slow.  Add in multiple attacks and it quickly gets out of hand.  If you have nested decision rolls (e.g. exploding dice), like "if this then roll again", it gets even worse.

Another speed of play concept that seems to be missed a lot is how fast can you calculate what you need to roll.  This is my bugbear with percentile systems, either I ignore the 2% here the 3% there or combat crawls.

There is also Complexity of Concepts and Clearness of Expression and Presentation.  Often the concepts are not fundamentally difficult but using unusual terms can be problematic.  Likewise, it's OK to have say even 10-20 choices for a class or species as long as you ensure making an informed choice is easy, add in a table comparing them mechanically and some brief squibs.

Lastly, "light" and Completeness of Rules are often at odds.  YMMV about what is complete.  I can say roll 2D6 against a target number and that is your rule, or give attributes by descriptors (seems so "light") but without good examples (i.e., the game designer has thought out the odds for certain situations that make sense for what the game mechanics represent) you end up really designing your own game as you play.  This is my complaint about many touted "light" systems.  Yeah, you shared your wonderful insight on a game mechanic, one that was likely first floated by 1981, big effing deal.   Without good and a goodly amount of examples, and all the "stuff" that makes use of your mechanics (for example designed, vehicles, magic items, spells) your "game" to me is just an idea your asking me to flesh out.

Quote from: Ashakyre;953212".... Also, I just wasn't sure by what people meant by rules lite. It always sounded pretty vague.

It is vague and used mostly to denigrate other games as not being it and/or for whiners to whine.  As a player it really comes down to what I need to memorize about the games system mechanics to play effectively and speed of play.

Quote from: Xanther;953343It is vague and used mostly to denigrate other games

I've never seen the term used in anything but a neutral description of the relative complexity of a system. Whether any given hobbyist prefers a higher degree of complexity or not, that preference has nothing to do with the terminology used.