FUDGE, FATE, Risus, PDQ, others? What's your favorite rules-light system out there, and why? Or do you dislike them in general?
Put me down as having no use for them.
Quote from: gleichmanPut me down as having no use for them.
Duly noted. :reporter:
I 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.
Depends on how ya define "rules-light" (I know ya gave some examples, but bear with me). I have heard some describe True20 as rules-light and some who say it's not rules-light. As it's my favorite rules set ATM I'll let ya decide for yourself. As for the other systems ya mentioned, what I have seen of them has not appealed to me.
Quote from: SigmundDepends on how ya define "rules-light" (I know ya gave some examples, but bear with me). I have heard some describe True20 as rules-light and some who say it's not rules-light. As it's my favorite rules set ATM I'll let ya decide for yourself. As for the other systems ya mentioned, what I have seen of them has not appealed to me.
Of course, everyone does have their different opinions of what constitutes rules-light (to some, its anything less complicated than
Hybrid, but I'll leave that up to the individual poster as to how they define it. I personally think True 20 is sort of "medium-light", but that's just how I think of it.
Quote from: Zachary The FirstOf course, everyone does have their different opinions of what constitutes rules-light (to some, its anything less complicated than Hybrid, but I'll leave that up to the individual poster as to how they define it. I personally think True 20 is sort of "medium-light", but that's just how I think of it.
Over-easy it is. I like my systems over-easy...and with a dash of salt. Oh, and pepper....I like pepper.
Fudge is my system of choice.
I like my rules so light that the new magic system I designed for my fantasy games had among its design goals: "No more than one page in length." :)
Quote from: SigmundOver-easy it is. I like my systems over-easy...and with a dash of salt. Oh, and pepper....I like pepper.
I think I'm going to start describing RPGs in steak-cooking terms. Freeform would be steak tartar. Stuff like Wushu and the insubstantial Forgite stuff would be rare and bloody. D&D can be medium-well. Hero is well-done (in steak terms, anyways). Hybrid has been completely carbonized.
Quote from: Zachary The FirstI think I'm going to start describing RPGs in steak-cooking terms. Freeform would be steak tartar. Stuff like Wushu and the insubstantial Forgite stuff would be rare and bloody. D&D can be medium-well. Hero is well-done (in steak terms, anyways). Hybrid has been completely carbonized.
Hybrid is when you order a steak and they bring you a creepy clown with a boner.
I prefer them lighter to heavier. In my old age I want simple games the GM can just make a rule on and fly. I don't want to argue about rules. Give me players that trust the GM and a system that will feel like I want it to feel. I think FATE is peachy-keen.
Though if the concept behind them is good enough I might like it anyway. I have a love for Exalted, but it's like the hot girl you see at the club with the back tattoo doing shots of tequila. You know it's going to be bad for you but you want it anyway. :p
Quote from: MaddmanHybrid is when you order a steak and they bring you a creepy clown with a boner.
I prefer them lighter to heavier. In my old age I want simple games the GM can just make a rule on and fly. I don't want to argue about rules. Give me players that trust the GM and a system that will feel like I want it to feel. I think FATE is peachy-keen.
Though if the concept behind them is good enough I might like it anyway. I have a love for Exalted, but it's like the hot girl you see at the club with the back tattoo doing shots of tequila. You know it's going to be bad for you but you want it anyway. :p
The girl I can dig, but Exalted leaves me with a completely different reaction. To me it's more like a bad smell....I sniff a few times to try and identify it, but I still want it to go away.
Quote from: SigmundThe girl I can dig, but Exalted leaves me with a completely different reaction. To me it's more like a bad smell....I sniff a few times to try and identify it, but I still want it to go away.
To me, Exalted is more like the current fashion over here of women wearing boots with rolled-up jeans. I dislike it, but it's very popular, omnipresent in the places I frequent, and allegedly fashionable.
Quote from: Zachary The FirstTo me, Exalted is more like the current fashion over here of women wearing boots with rolled-up jeans. I dislike it, but it's very popular, omnipresent in the places I frequent, and allegedly fashionable.
:lol:
Over the Edge is one of my favorite rules-light systems.
I also, naturally, happen to like Dead of Night. :deviousgrin:
I 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. :D
-mcie
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. :D
-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!" :D
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...
Quote from: CyberzombieToo bad the combat system is nonfunctional.
Quote from: Ben LehmanOh God does combat in Over the Edge suck.
Huh, we never had any problems with combat in OTE. It worked pretty well when I was using the OTE rules to run a post-holocaust game. Ah well, different striokes and all that jazz...
Quote from: Zachary The FirstHmm...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?
Just drop the pre-qualifying "Can I really do this" stage, and don't care about your character getting hardened or whatever. You're not going for a real-world feel, so you don't need it.
-mice
Quote from: flyingmiceJust drop the pre-qualifying "Can I really do this" stage, and don't care about your character getting hardened or whatever. You're not going for a real-worlf feel, so you don't need it.
-mice
Cool. The rest of the system sounds solid, so I'll be checking it out. :bow:
I ran CoC d20 as a rules-light system. :) It worked well.
-O
BESM is my personal favorite lite brand. not only do i like anime, its also a super simple, super flexible system that can be used for just about anything effectively.
For d20 I like Core Elements (http://zombienirvana.sitesled.com/core.htm)
Gonna try C&C... maybe house rule a bit...
BRP
Fudge is good :)
Then there's Classic Traveller... ;)
Of the systems I've played.
Everway - Probably the most lite game I've played other than Cowboys and Indians as a kid.
Feng Shui - Core mechanic is lite, but then you have all the schticks, pretty lite still.
I prefer mine medium to medium well but it depends on the group and what we are trying to accomplish.
Add me to the "I love Over the Edge"-choir. Of course, the combat system has issues, but if you're really going for rules-lite, they're easy to work around.
I'd add the Basic Roleplaying systems to the rules-lite, since they are so ridiculously easy to grasp. I like them a lot, from Call of Cthulhu to Pendragon.
I would be in the Risus crowd (although, I must admit that I have just gotten into it, so my opinion may be tainted by freshness - I've only run a few sessions).
I also like FUDGE.
For medium-light, I like True20.
Most people may argue it, if they have played my system, but I do prefer lite systems. I just am not sure I have the same definition of lite system as others due. To that end, I am really digging the Iridium Lite system I have worked up for Squirrel Attack! and have always been a fan of Fudge.
Zachary should know what I am talking about...I hope. :)
Bill
Quote from: HinterWeltMost people may argue it, if they have played my system, but I do prefer lite systems. I just am not sure I have the same definition of lite system as others due. To that end, I am really digging the Iridium Lite system I have worked up for Squirrel Attack! and have always been a fan of Fudge.
Zachary should know what I am talking about...I hope. :)
Bill
Indeed I do. :bow: Iridium Lite probably wouldn't fall into what many folks consider to be a rules-light game, but it does play appreciably fast, and isn't hard to pick up (as evidenced by SA), and is much lighter than Iridium Core.
Mercenaries, Spies and Private Eyes is the ruleslite rpg I'd most like to GM in the near future. The T&T system translated rather nicely to the modern setting, which was a pleasant surprise. ;)
Anyone have links for more info on the Iridium Light or Mercenaries, Spies, and Private Eyes games? It'd help them enter the conversation more.
By T&T, do you mean Tunnels & Trolls? I had no idea it still existed.
Quote from: NicephorusAnyone have links for more info on the Iridium Light or Mercenaries, Spies, and Private Eyes games? It'd help them enter the conversation more.
By T&T, do you mean Tunnels & Trolls? I had no idea it still existed.
Squirrel Attack Home Page is here (http://www.hinterwelt.com/Squirrel-Ref.html) If you download the demo, that is the Iridium Lite rules. We are doing some playtesting for Supers Inc. right now and we have a few changes. I will put them up when we get it all finalized (probably a couple of weeks).
Bill
Quote from: HinterWeltSquirrel Attack Home Page is here (http://www.hinterwelt.com/Squirrel-Ref.html) If you download the demo, that is the Iridium Lite rules.
Based on a quick browse, mainly of the character sheets (which tell a bunch about a system), it looks good but I'm not sure if it qualifies as lite - 15 stats, tracking armor and hits for 10 locations.
Quote from: NicephorusBased on a quick browse, mainly of the character sheets (which tell a bunch about a system), it looks good but I'm not sure if it qualifies as lite - 15 stats, tracking armor and hits for 10 locations.
Like I said, some folks may not see it as such. For me, lite rules are all about how much I need to read. In the case of IL, it is under 6 full (8.5x11) pages and just under 12 on the statement size.
I do appreciate that some folks rate lite rules by number of stats. To me, that is not such an important criteria. I had to think long and hard about the armor/fortitude tracking but in the end, it is kind of central to my games. I must admit, that is why I say IL may not qualify for a lot of people as lite. However, it is lite compared to the Iridium Core rules.
Thanks for looking them over. I am always looking for ways to improve the system.
Bill
That brings up a good point. What are the key feature(s) that make something lite?
total amount of rules?
Speed of learning?
speed of play?
memory load during play?
These are all related but not the same.
Speed of play is heavily affected by the number of steps to resolve an action. For example, rolemaster could never get lite as you always had to go through several crit charts for every hit.
To me, memory load is important to keep things light and fast. A game needs enough items about each character such that the player feels that they are well defined but not so many that they have trouble remembering everything about their character - if you can keep almost all of it in your head, you don't have to stop and check things. The tricky bit is that the set point varies across individuals. It's also not just a count of # of facts as things that are intuitive to remember take less memory than thngs difficult to comprehend.
Example: BESM started out as a light system. You had three abilities, three derived stats, and 3-4 special things your character did. But when they added skills and started getting more nitty gritty about what each special power did, it became more of a medium complexity games.
As far as Rules-Lite, right now I think I like Fudge and Risus the most, with BESM coming up a little behind. (It's fairly light once characters are done, depending on how much detail you throw into things.) I'm interested in checking out the BESM Vanilla rules once they escape.
Quote from: NicephorusThat brings up a good point. What are the key feature(s) that make something lite?
total amount of rules?
Speed of learning?
speed of play?
memory load during play?
These are all related but not the same.
Speed of play is heavily affected by the number of steps to resolve an action. For example, rolemaster could never get lite as you always had to go through several crit charts for every hit.
To me, memory load is important to keep things light and fast. A game needs enough items about each character such that the player feels that they are well defined but not so many that they have trouble remembering everything about their character - if you can keep almost all of it in your head, you don't have to stop and check things. The tricky bit is that the set point varies across individuals. It's also not just a count of # of facts as things that are intuitive to remember take less memory than thngs difficult to comprehend.
Example: BESM started out as a light system. You had three abilities, three derived stats, and 3-4 special things your character did. But when they added skills and started getting more nitty gritty about what each special power did, it became more of a medium complexity games.
hmm, tough one on whether IL makes the list then. Most of the memory load is offloaded onto the character sheet. It walks you through the steps and during play there is no referencing the book.
Perhaps IL is more of a medium complexity although I haven't given up hope it is a lite system yet. :)
Bill