By robust I mean games with lots of rules but where those rules serve a purpose, ie are a conscious design decision rather than just crappy design.

Spycraft is the example which sparked this, though current DnD also clearly fits. Robust in the sense that the rules are comprehensive and thorough.

Now, for me the downside is that they are just too much work to run.  I tend to prefer lighter systems.

But, lots of folk see robust rulesets as a good thing, so please explain what they bring to the party for you that a lighter ruleset wouldn't.

Nb.  Lighter, by which I mean stuff like BRP or Unisystem, not light such as Risus or Over the Edge.

I don't know how light Unisystem or BRP really are. But I can answer for my experiences.

IMO, a major benefit of having many rules is the distinguishing of character within a spectrum. Take a "fighter." If you have a guy who fights sword-and-shield vs. axe and a tremendous strength and they are roughly equivalent in effectivness but with some substantial differences in actual effect and how they play, I consider that a good thing: there are at least two separate niches in the "fighter" niche.

The finer the gradations that exist, the better I think that is when players are taking characters that may fit into some of the same categories.

-Marco

The short answer?

I need a set of rules that allows detailed and significant tactical combat decisions while invoking the spirit of beloved source materials. It must do this in a balanced setting allowing generational play in-game and decades of fun in the real world.

You just don't get that with a simple system.

Quote from: MarcoI don't know how light Unisystem or BRP really are. But I can answer for my experiences.

They're just examples, I didn't want people comparing rules heavy and rules light, it's fairly obvious why people might go for the extremely light or avoid it.  But the middleweights against the heavyweights, that hardly ever gets asked.

I'm trying to dig up my longer treatise on this in rpg-create, but I have to take the wayback machine. In the meantime, I'll try to throw something together quick:

• Consistency and fidelity (I invoke these terms together because I think I saw Akrasia around... ). Acheiving a certain level of consistency given a certain level of desired fidelity in the model the game presents. Where GM fiat is relied on and decisions are not adhered to and recorded, there is less chance of consistent results from game to game or (especially) from GM to GM.
• Creating a sense of grounding in reality; provind players with a reasonable estimation of what is possible, probable, or unlikely in the setting. If this is written and codified, the player can have a better understanding to base game decisions on. Lack of this can lead to a feeling of uncertainty which is uncomfortable and restraining for some player.
• immersion/simulation/modeling - A greater level of detail of modeling in the game can give many players a better sense of reality (or "mock reality" or "depth" in settings that are fantastical in nature). Broadly painted details seem less real by their lack of depth and hinder immersion. The details that are important here vary from player to player. Some players may want to see the differences in AK47s and M16s explicitly realized, or it detracts from their faith in the adequacy of the model.
• depth of character modeling - for some players, and a 3-trait Over the Edge Character just doesn't seem as rich or detailed as a Rolemaster character.
• sense of investment - For some players, the effort expended in crafting that rolemaster character results in something more meaningful to them.
• Benefit of Forethought - Mechanics that explicitly define how certain situations, and especially complicated situations, can be given forethought and acheive better handling by capturing good methods, encoding them, and exposing them to criticism. Similarly (and this seems to be a trend in Indie games) good GM techniques can be encoded and captured in the game design, conveying that benefit to other GMs.

Well, a lot of people like there to be a rule for everything.

That way the players (in theory) don't have issues with the GMs rulings so much. Also cuts down on the GM making up rules on the fly.

I happen to not like detailed rules myself, but understand why others do.

Besides the points above, if you want a tactical game it is bound to be rules heavy.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad

• Benefit of Forethought - Mechanics that explicitly define how certain situations, and especially complicated situations, can be given forethought and acheive better handling by capturing good methods, encoding them, and exposing them to criticism. Similarly (and this seems to be a trend in Indie games) good GM techniques can be encoded and captured in the game design, conveying that benefit to other GMs.

That's the key one right there for me.  Because good rules are hard**, and I'd like to have lots of help up front. I'd rather not invest a huge amount of time designing and getting buy-in from the other people at the table, and I certainly would rather not toss it together on the fly at the table.

QuoteIf this is written and codified, the player can have a better understanding to base game decisions on. Lack of this can lead to a feeling of uncertainty which is uncomfortable and restraining for some player.

This would be the second, lesser part of it. For me it isn't so much as being uncomfortable as I desire to reach out and change. I'm just not a passive player that way. I want to make shit happen, and I plan, some may claim scheme, like crazy to do it.

I could give examples here, but the clearest one is when I managed to maneuver so the rest of the party owned a 10% tax to my PC on every bit of treasure they found.  My poor GM just put his forehead to the table and banged when I dropped the nickel on what I'd pulled off.  Oh man, it was funnier than hell. Of course the PC has yet to be able to collect any of that tax.  Because their are some obvious issues with enforcement.


** As in they take effort and testing on top of the frame of mind of aiming for specific end results.  It is sad how many people don't even get the last part.

The Slaad and Mcrow have pretty much summed up how I feel. I feel more secure as a player and a DM if I know there are solid rules to back up most contingencies. I feel like there is too much handwaving and DM whim involved when I'm playing with a lighter rules-set. Others may not feel that way, but I do. I can understand the appeal of rules light systems, but I like them only for short term campaigns or one-off sessions.

What's the problem with GM fiat?  As long as you trust your GM where's the problem?

Umm - Balbinus is not talking about Rules Light games. He is specifically curious about the Rules-Medium and Rules-Hard divide. He defines Rules Medium as games like BRP and Unisystem.

We seem to have all jumped off into Rules Heavy vs Rules Light here...

-mice

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalWhat's the problem with GM fiat?  As long as you trust your GM where's the problem?

Because as a DM myself, I know that it often becomes a matter of pulling stuff out of one's ass. It's easy to pick up on that. That's why I like comprehensive rules - there is less ambiguity.

Quote from: flyingmiceUmm - Balbinus is not talking about Rules Light games. He is specifically curious about the Rules-Medium and Rules-Hard divide. He defines Rules Medium as games like BRP and Unisystem.

We seem to have all jumped off into Rules Heavy vs Rules Light here...

-mice

Well, I was imprecise in my terminology, but the what I said still holds true for the divide you speak of. I like mechanics that cover as much as possible in the game world. In my experience, while this makes prep time longer, it also frees up the GM to create situations and opponents without having to worry about how he will handle them in actual play. My personal preference, of course, and there are others who feel differently, I realize.

It's really a tradeoff; as far as I am concerned, the basic issues remain across the spectrum of games. It's just a matter of your comfort with the rules set versus your comfort of living without them.

Quote from: BalbinusBy robust I mean games with lots of rules but where those rules serve a purpose, ie are a conscious design decision rather than just crappy design.
 
Spycraft is the example which sparked this, though current DnD also clearly fits. Robust in the sense that the rules are comprehensive and thorough.
 
Now, for me the downside is that they are just too much work to run. I tend to prefer lighter systems.
 
But, lots of folk see robust rulesets as a good thing, so please explain what they bring to the party for you that a lighter ruleset wouldn't.
 
Nb. Lighter, by which I mean stuff like BRP or Unisystem, not light such as Risus or Over the Edge.

Rules present the element of fairness in the game system. They can also provide a far more entertaining narrative with your less creative players.

In Exalted, for example, My Abbyssal has platemail armor and a Soulsteel Daiclave. I can activate a charm with my Abbysal where he spouts thick coagulated blood chains from his body. These provide him extra actions. He attacks with a flurry of 6 blows. You can imagine him as some evil bloody doc-octopus type swinging his sword and attacking with the blood chains.
Every time he hits with his sword he regains essence. Causing him to glow slightly.
 
So my deathknight charges with a fury of chains, punches and sword slashes as his sword dances betweend his extensions and his fists. Glowing with a reinforced vigor everytime he hurts his opponent.
 
Most rules reinforce the differences between characters and/or the differences between character actions. The more detailed rulesets support a more detailed variety of character choices, as the specifics of their actions mean something in an actual mechanical sense.

Quote from: KrakaJakYou can imagine him as some evil bloody doc-octopus type swinging his sword and attacking with the blood chains.

  And they wonder why people think gamers are crazy.