I don't love robust rules.  For me, they kill the creative element.  But, then, my gaming style and that of my group is not one where the GM or the players are competing with one another so that they feel they need rules to arbitrate between them.

I like lighter rulesets that are more abstract in nature, especially if they can resolve combat down to a couple of small, easy to figure rounds instead of giving the blow-by-blow account.  Argh! Just thinking about it has my head spinning!

Quote from: VellorianI don't love robust rules.  For me, they kill the creative element.  But, then, my gaming style and that of my group is not one where the GM or the players are competing with one another so that they feel they need rules to arbitrate between them.

I think anyone selecting a heavy ruleset to arbitrate between competing GM and/or players are likely doing a disservice both to themselves and the rules.

I have heard however of some groups where that is an assumed play style. I would have none of it myself.

Quote from: VellorianI like lighter rulesets that are more abstract in nature, especially if they can resolve combat down to a couple of small, easy to figure rounds instead of giving the blow-by-blow account.  Argh! Just thinking about it has my head spinning!

Oh well, more glory and excellence for myself :kickback:

Quote from: VellorianI don't love robust rules.  For me, they kill the creative element.  But, then, my gaming style and that of my group is not one where the GM or the players are competing with one another so that they feel they need rules to arbitrate between them.

The reasons I have for wanting a robust rules set has little to nothing to do with "arbitrating between the players".

If it handles that, the for those it works for, more power to 'em. But it's far from the only reason you would want such rules.

Quote from: VellorianI like lighter rulesets that are more abstract in nature, especially if they can resolve combat down to a couple of small, easy to figure rounds instead of giving the blow-by-blow account. Argh! Just thinking about it has my head spinning!

Quote from: gleichman

Oh well, more glory and excellence for myself :kickback:

Bear in mind, I'm thinking of what I like for my roleplaying games.  

If I'm playing miniatures, I love the detailed rules and blow-by-blow accounts of the action.  I love the tactics and strategies involved in slamming spaceships at each other in Battlefleet: Gothic or hurling atomic death at giant robots in Battletech.  

I just think it bogs down my roleplaying experience when we have to waste three hours (real time) to resolve a two minute (game time) combat experience

Quote from: Caesar SlaadThe reasons I have for wanting a robust rules set has little to nothing to do with "arbitrating between the players".

If it handles that, the for those it works for, more power to 'em. But it's far from the only reason you would want such rules.

I did not mean it to come across that way.  After reading through the thread, that seemed the most common element.  In fact, several people said that they felt the rules "protected" them.  If you need to be "protected" then there must be some kind of conflict/competition involved that requires arbitration either between players or between players and the GM.

Quote from: VellorianI don't love robust rules.  For me, they kill the creative element.  But, then, my gaming style and that of my group is not one where the GM or the players are competing with one another so that they feel they need rules to arbitrate between them.

My gaming style isn't like that either. It's a matter of players and GM wanting to feel secure in the knowledge there is an actual game mechanic covering whatever is in question. It isn't about mutually hostile GMs and players. It's more about not having to sit and hash everything out to everyone's satisfaction when the rules don't cover something.

Quote from: VellorianBear in mind, I'm thinking of what I like for my roleplaying games.  

If I'm playing miniatures, I love the detailed rules and blow-by-blow accounts of the action.  I love the tactics and strategies involved in slamming spaceships at each other in Battlefleet: Gothic or hurling atomic death at giant robots in Battletech.  

I just think it bogs down my roleplaying experience when we have to waste three hours (real time) to resolve a two minute (game time) combat experience

We come at it in different directions it seems.

For myself, the reason I role-play is to provide framing and meaning for wargaming. I think either without the other is a lesser creation.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonMy gaming style isn't like that either. It's a matter of players and GM wanting to feel secure in the knowledge there is an actual game mechanic covering whatever is in question. It isn't about mutually hostile GMs and players. It's more about not having to sit and hash everything out to everyone's satisfaction when the rules don't cover something.

Okay, then I'm clearly not understanding some of the things said in this thread, and, specifically, some of the things you said.  Please pardon me, I must be slow.  

I'm definitely not trying to denigrate anyone's preference for a style of play or their preference for a game system.  I'm genuinely trying to understand.

Can you give me an example of a game that is "rules lite" that doesn't have "an actual game mechanic covering whatever is in question?"

Quote from: ColonelHardissonIt's more about not having to sit and hash everything out to everyone's satisfaction when the rules don't cover something.

Yeah. It's really, in a way, an extension and formalization of the social contract that prevails at the table.

There's a saying that goes "Good fences make good neighbors." I think this sort of boils down to if everyone shares the same expectations, you don't have the opportunity to have those expectations betrayed as if the expectations weren't agreed on.

Hey, I could've never come up with that without the exalted rules set. I'm just not that creative (cray?))
 

Quote from: Caesar SlaadIt'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.

This must be some Bizarro-world RPG site, since I find myself agreeing with you yet again. :cool:

I prefer 'rules medium' myself -- enough rules to give me an overall 'structure', but not so many that they cramp my style, or make it tedious for me to tinker with them.

After years of debating the whole 'rules-lite-versus-rules-heavy' thing on various RPG fora (including with CS/Psion), I think that it is just a matter of your style as a GM.  Some people like rules for (almost) everything (for various reasons, perhaps they feel it achieves a higher level of 'verisimilitude' for them), while other like as few rules as possible (because rules stiffle their 'creativity' and ability to improvise).  As a good Aristotelian, I fall somewhere in the middle.

Quote from: VellorianI did not mean it to come across that way.  After reading through the thread, that seemed the most common element.  In fact, several people said that they felt the rules "protected" them.  If you need to be "protected" then there must be some kind of conflict/competition involved that requires arbitration either between players or between players and the GM.

Perhaps you took my use of the word "secure" to equate with "protection." If so, I didn't quite mean it that way. The only "protection" I was referring to, in so many words, was against having the game get bogged down by confusion caused by gaps in the rules. Even the most well-reasoned people can disagree about how something should be handled when there is either no rule or precedent for what is being attempted.

In case anyone decides to bring it up, yeah, I realize the implications of more robust systems. They can be exploited by rules lawyering, and can, if one is unfamiliar with them, bog down the game as they are interpreted on the fly. Page flipping is also a slowdown as specific rules are rooted out. But I do know that once everyone is familiar with the rules, or if even just one person is really familiar with them, the game can run smoothly and quickly.

Quote from: VellorianCan you give me an example of a game that is "rules lite" that doesn't have "an actual game mechanic covering whatever is in question?"

Okay, I'll set up an extreme contrast.

In FUDGE, when a character suffers an injury, there is no mechanic for determining where the bullet hit.

In Millenium's End, I'll know within centimeters where it hit.

(In Tri Tac System's games, you might even know how deep in penetrated into your body. BID).

Quote from: Vellorian... Can you give me an example of a game that is "rules lite" that doesn't have "an actual game mechanic covering whatever is in question?"

I agree with you that most 'rules lite' systems do have mechanics to cover all relevant game situations.

This debate often comes down to how much detail people like those mechanics to have -- i.e., how 'fine-grained' the mechanics in question should be.

It is my experience that sometimes you want something that's fast and easy, and where much of the particular mechanics are left up to the DM's call rather than codified so that you must look them up.  In those moments a rules-lite game can be very good.

But I've also noticed that rules-lite games tend to run for less time than rules-medium games. Its far easier for players to get bored or dis-satisfied with the game.

RPGPundit