There's also SM-30, courtesy of Steve Miller...

Discounting most Forge games, which I actually consider more rules-heavy than rules-light...

I'm really fond of Over the Edge and FATE.  They're basically my goto games when I don't have a highly-tuned engine waiting for that particular game.

yrs--
--Ben

Rules light or rules heavy depends on who is running the game for me.

I have one friend who is skilled at creating very detailed and enjoyable games with rules heavier games.

His girlfriend runs a good game as well, but hers are much more free form and rules almost non existant. (Last game she ran was Changeling, the rules are so bad we ignored most of them.)

If she is running, I want a rules light system.  Why?  Because I can have fun in either and I would rather approach things as a player from the rules light perspective because I know the lady running the game is going to.

If her boyfriend is running, then I would rather have the perspective of rules heavy as he is going to use the extra detail and crunch of the rules.

Quote from: flyingmiceI like d4-d4, risus, and PDQ for rules light gaming. All of them are rather rare on the Zachary scale. OTOH, I prefer rules medium games overall.

-mcie

I gravitate towards medium, but I have my favorites on both ends of the spectrum.  For instance, Rolemaster is considered rules-heavy (though many RM adherents will tell you that label applies only during CharGen), but I still have my near-mystic bond with it.  At the same time, I really like systems like Risus and PDQ.  I can't say as how I've tried d4-d4, but I've been curious about it.  I've heard it's oriented towards pulp-style and action gaming.  Yes?

Quote from: Zachary The FirstI gravitate towards medium, but I have my favorites on both ends of the spectrum.  For instance, Rolemaster is considered rules-heavy (though many RM adherents will tell you that label applies only during CharGen), but I still have my near-mystic bond with it.  At the same time, I really like systems like Risus and PDQ.  I can't say as how I've tried d4-d4, but I've been curious about it.  I've heard it's oriented towards pulp-style and action gaming.  Yes?

What it's geared to is human scale gaming - it works equally well for historical or science fiction as for pulp or action. Basically it's a ladder of success game with the ladder centered on your particular rung, but the actual individual result varying up or down by one to three rungs based on the die roll of d4 - d4.

-mice

Quote from: MaddmanHybrid is when you order a steak and they bring you a creepy clown with a boner.

I have no word for this statement other than "Awesome!"

My favorite rules light system is my favorite system overall-D6.  

I also enjoy Castles and Crusades, it is what Third Edition D&D should have been, in my opinion.

Quote from: flyingmiceWhat it's geared to is human scale gaming - it works equally well for historical or science fiction as for pulp or action. Basically it's a ladder of success game with the ladder centered on your particular rung, but the actual individual result varying up or down by one to three rungs based on the die roll of d4 - d4.

-mice

Sounds simple enough.  Is combat handled as a skill, or rather is task and combat resolution handled the same or differently?

Quote from: KnightskyI absolutely adore Over The Edge.  Besides having a surreal and entertaining campaign setting, it's got a tight little rule system that works well for both pick-up games and extended campaigns.

Too bad the combat system is nonfunctional.  We had fun with it up until the point where we tried to actually fight something.    Damn shame, too.  My character was doing a favour for Elvis...

I like Steve Miller's SM-30.  Damn fun little game.

In general, though, I like my rules a minimum of medium.  I'll go with medium well -- well done tends to end up with things like Chartmaster, and that's just too much.

Oh God does combat in Over the Edge suck.

Here's how I do it:

One roll decides the combat.  The winner wins, the loser loses, with whatever that entails, but the loser doesn't die.

If the winner wants, he can push for death stakes.  Roll again.  The new winner kills the other guy, regardless of won or lost the first roll.

yrs--
--Ben

Quote from: Zachary The FirstSounds simple enough.  Is combat handled as a skill, or rather is task and combat resolution handled the same or differently?

Combat is handled a bit differently, in that you first have to overcome your natural reluctance to kill. Generally speaking, each time you succeed at killing, your reluctance goes down. Each time you fail, your reluctance goes up. As Kyle (the author) puts it:

"This is the reason that d4-d4 does not give copious tables of statistics for guns and other weapons. For the vast majority of people, even combat soldiers, the problem of weapons is not whether the .44 Magnum has greater "stopping power" than the 9mm parabellum, or 38 hollow-nose; it's pulling the trigger while pointing it at a human being. It doesn't matter what the calibre or range or fire rate of the thing is if you never fire it directly at anyone. And if you are willing to fire, then you will eventually kill the guy, regardless of how useless your weapon is."

Once you are past that hurdle, then it is a standard trait test for resolution, like anything else, nested within initiative, damage, and wound consequences, like most games.

-mice

Quote from: flyingmiceAs Kyle (the author) puts it:

... while falling for one of the great modern myths (that has a bit of truth in it, way too generally applied).

On the other hand, there are genres of gaming where you want this exact result, realistic or not.

I like Dying Earth, or at least Dying Earth with everything but the social rules reduced to d6 + skill v. target number.

In Dying Earth, if I use a persuade skill to tell your PC to do something, your PC has to do it if I succeed. You can attempt to rebuff and counter, either avoiding my coercion and perhaps forcing my PC to do something.

The system is very simple - everyone has a pool of dice. You spend a die from your pool to make an attempt. A 2 or 3 is a failure, a 4 or 5 is a success. A 6 is a super success - the target has to spend 3 dice to counter. A 1 is a super failure - you have to spend 3 dice to try the task again.

The rules for getting your dice back are a little complex, so we just allowed PCs to get them back at the end of each encounter.

Also, there's a semi-complex system of keywords for each debate technique. We got rid of that too.

OK, looking back, we tore Dying Earth to bits and used the one, cool mechanic from it. But I still stand by my original response.

EDIT: If you aren't familiar with Dying Earth, it's a setting where the main characters are weasly, lazy bastards. Conning each other into doing stupid things is completely keeping with the genre. In one game I ran, a big, bad demodand suprised the PCs at their campsite and forced them to build a litter for it and carry it across the mountains. It was fun watching the PCs scramble to foist on each other all the backbreaking, disgusting chores the monster kept doling out to them.

Quote from: Technomancer... I also enjoy Castles and Crusades, it is what Third Edition D&D should have been, in my opinion.

Same here, though I think C&C is more 'rules medium'.  (Definitely much 'lighter' than d20/3e, but then most things are.)

Quote from: mearlsI like Dying Earth...

Yeah, I've always wanted to play that.  I dig the rules, but have never found a willing group.

Quote from: flyingmiceCombat is handled a bit differently, in that you first have to overcome your natural reluctance to kill. Generally speaking, each time you succeed at killing, your reluctance goes down. Each time you fail, your reluctance goes up. As Kyle (the author) puts it:

"This is the reason that d4-d4 does not give copious tables of statistics for guns and other weapons. For the vast majority of people, even combat soldiers, the problem of weapons is not whether the .44 Magnum has greater "stopping power" than the 9mm parabellum, or 38 hollow-nose; it's pulling the trigger while pointing it at a human being. It doesn't matter what the calibre or range or fire rate of the thing is if you never fire it directly at anyone. And if you are willing to fire, then you will eventually kill the guy, regardless of how useless your weapon is."

Once you are past that hurdle, then it is a standard trait test for resolution, like anything else, nested within initiative, damage, and wound consequences, like most games.

-mice

Hmm...it's an interesting thought, but it's not a style or theory for combat I can see as really fitting in with the style of games I run.  How easy would it be to throw out for more straight-up pulp-style or adventure gaming?

Quote from: CyberzombieI like Steve Miller's SM-30.  Damn fun little game.

If you liked SM-30, try Jeff Grubb's Dyvil...