TheRPGSite

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.

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

Quote from: ColonelHardissonPerhaps 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.

In my gaming experience, primarily as the GM, and usually as the only one who took the time to read the game mechanics (sometimes even the only one who read the setting details...), I don't think I've ever encountered a situation where the players felt the need to debate about the application of the rules.

Is that what you're saying?  

Where a GM would encounter a situation like this:

GM: "You fall out of the building and take X damage."  
P1: "I only fell 10 feet."
GM: "Yes, but you took X damage."
P2: "Have you read the falling rules, GM?"
GM: "Yes, I have.  They're on page 144.  He takes X damage."
P1: "That doesn't make sense!  I only fell 10 feet!"
P2: "Yeah,  he only fell 10 feet."
GM: (Opens book, points to chart, shows that he has to roll 2D6 and he got a 10.)
P1: "Oh.  Okay.  I took X damage."
P2: "Bummer roll, dude."

Is that what you're talking about, albeit simplified?

Quote from: AkrasiaI 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.

And let's add in "how much skill is required" to succeed in actual play.

Most simple rule systems are "decide to engage or not"- resolve combat in a die roll or two. The only time skilled play comes into effect that first decision (fight or not).

In a heavier game system, victory is only decided after a number of decisions- each of which (in a well designed system) have a part in determining the outcome.

Quote from: AkrasiaI 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.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Akrasia!  What you said was what was mulling and plunking in my mind and you put words to it.  Thank you!  

It's a matter of detail.  Shadowrun, though somewhat heavy on rules in general, is light on the combat side because it's abstract.  It's not blow-for-blow, but abstracts a single conflict to see who came out on top in the end and a lot of people who don't like Shadowrun tend to bring up combat.

As Caesar Slaad said before you, some games give a pinpoint accuracy on where you were hit, while other games don't.  I can remember playing a game that gave detailed information down to 10 second intervals for how long it would take you to bleed to death after taking a wound to the neck that was penetrating versus cutting.

Granularity, then, is what I was missing.

Quote from: VellorianIt's a matter of detail.  Shadowrun, though somewhat heavy on rules in general, is light on the combat side because it's abstract.  It's not blow-for-blow, but abstracts a single conflict to see who came out on top in the end and a lot of people who don't like Shadowrun tend to bring up combat.

Are we thinking of the same Shadowrun? Perhaps this is the 3rd edition.

Quote from: VellorianGranularity, then, is what I was missing.

I don't think the PoV I was putting forward was driven by Granularity. But I'm think I'm seriously outnumbered here so that's forgivable.

Quote from: gleichmanAre we thinking of the same Shadowrun? Perhaps this is the 3rd edition.

In every hand-to-hand combat situation, the two combatants both rolled verses the same target number (4) and compared successes to see who got the most.  The one who got the most was able to inflict damage on the other.  This was supposed to represent "several blows exchanged back and forth for the duration of the action."

That was 1st, 2nd and 3rd editions.  I don't know about 4th, though.

Quote from: VellorianIn every hand-to-hand combat situation, the two combatants both rolled verses the same target number (4) and compared successes to see who got the most.  The one who got the most was able to inflict damage on the other.

Ah, hand-to-hand.

It's been a while since I've played SR, and I was recalling ranged combat and that wasn't want I'd call abstract compared to other major systems.

Quote from: VellorianIn every hand-to-hand combat situation, the two combatants both rolled verses the same target number (4) and compared successes to see who got the most.  The one who got the most was able to inflict damage on the other.  This was supposed to represent "several blows exchanged back and forth for the duration of the action."

That was 1st, 2nd and 3rd editions.  I don't know about 4th, though.

Fourth edition did away with the give and take melee, and I for one miss it. I think the interpretation is slightly different than 'abstracted series of blows' however.  An attempt at an attack could leave you open for a counterattack instead, so it was 'one exchange', rather than a series.  that was always my take.

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?"

A caveat: my definition of rules lite may differ from yours. Let's see. Decipher's "Lord of the Rings" RPG would likely be called rules-medium by many. As far as combat is concerned, I'd call it rules-lite. The group I was GMing it for became a lot more secure, and had a better handle on things, once I adopted the use of a battlemat and minis (very simple ones; at times we used dice). I did this so they could find and keep track of the position and distance of all combatants. I also used a few elements from D&D/d20 combat once they began asking about specific combat maneuvers, which also gave them confidence in the game. Once I began running it more like D&D/d20 combat, the players relaxed; they enjoyed having rules-codified actions to employ. When I was running it straight, they - and I, admittedly - were at a bit of a loss at times, as we wrangled around with combat possibilities and how to handle them. It slowed the game down. Once we established there were hard rules that could be used, the game sped up.

I'm sorry I'm not explaining that well.

Quote from: SpikeAn attempt at an attack could leave you open for a counterattack instead, so it was 'one exchange', rather than a series.  that was always my take.

Few games reduce the abstraction level for melee combat below 'an short exchange of blows'.

Quote from: gleichmanAh, hand-to-hand.

It's been a while since I've played SR, and I was recalling ranged combat and that wasn't want I'd call abstract compared to other major systems.

Yes, Shadowrun definitely had a lot more detail on the guns aspect of the mechanic.

So, back to the topic at hand, is it granularity of detail and how much minutiae the mechanic handles that defines how "heavy" or "light" the system is?  

If so, this could explain a lot about what I like in general.  I don't like books that are full of detailed descriptions of events or things.  I like it fairly simple and straightforward.  If it's not important to the story, then I don't need a description of it.  I find that conversations that have a few descriptive elements appeal to me much more than page after page of tedious description (Stephen King fits this example).  

I am discovering of late, however, that extensive descriptions of character thought processes are intriguing me.  

So, maybe it's that I like a lesser amount of detail?

Quote from: VellorianSo, back to the topic at hand, is it granularity of detail and how much minutiae the mechanic handles that defines how "heavy" or "light" the system is?  

It can be, but that doesn't have to be the driving force.

Quote from: AkrasiaI 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.

I can live with that distinction. Rules lite games often have rules that cover a situations in general rather than in detail. I want more specific rules, and, thus, more granularity.

Nice clarification.

Quote from: gleichmanI don't think the PoV I was putting forward was driven by Granularity. But I'm think I'm seriously outnumbered here so that's forgivable.

Having had this argument with Akrasia before, I do see it as something of a missing link between the two extremes. The term I uses was fidelity, but I think we are hitting around the same point.

You allude to "needing more skill". This could be a statement about incorporating GM techniques that I alluded to earlier. But you could also be talking about the sort of thing that I hammered out with Akrasia last year (IIRC).

What takes skill? One thing I was approaching as taking skill was "correctness of model." With an abstract system that relies on GM judgement for application, the system will only produce so many refinements in detail and relies on the GM to apply those results to produce something the players will find satisfactory and conducive to the role playing experience. Some players are pickier than others and some GMs are better at this than others. So for those who demand more "granularity" or "fidelity" (my preference), it is more demanding for a GM to do so consistently without the benefit of forethought.

Is that what you are getting at? Are we walking around the same element blindfolded?

Quote from: VellorianIs that what you're talking about, albeit simplified?

Hmm. I think this aspect of the discussion has been obviated by Akrasia pointing out that it's granularity rather than an actual lack of rules we're discussing here.

Quote from: VellorianSo, back to the topic at hand, is it granularity of detail and how much minutiae the mechanic handles that defines how "heavy" or "light" the system is?

It can also be a measure of how many or which areas are given detail. Which could be a measure of target audience. You have gunbunnies, you have starship builders, you have armchair martial artists, etc.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadIs that what you are getting at? Are we walking around the same element blindfolded?

I don't think I'm getting my point across for some reason, likely my own fault. I'm either going to have to phrase it a different (and likely much too long) way (which will take more time than I have now) or pass on this thread.

For now I'll just state that for my own case, granularity has nothing to do with my decision to use heavy rulesets. The issue of "fidelity" as I would use the term only had a secondary effect.

Quote from: VellorianYes, Shadowrun definitely had a lot more detail on the guns aspect of the mechanic.

So, back to the topic at hand, is it granularity of detail and how much minutiae the mechanic handles that defines how "heavy" or "light" the system is?  

So, maybe it's that I like a lesser amount of detail?

See I'm not about all the detail. I'm about the breadth. Similar things, but not the same.

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.

Like a lot of others have said, there is the feeling of consistency in well-designed heavy rulesets.

They provide a well-defined structure, a set of parameters for play, within which one can do whatever they want and be sure that the results will be consistent within the system (not necessarily reality; 3.5e is hardly realistic, but its processes produce results that are consistent on its own terms).  The detail is needed both to provide for a potentially wide range of ability and action, and to account for the interaction of various sub-systems within the whole.

I haven't played or run it, but I own Spycraft 2.0.  I'm amazed at all the stuff you can do with it.  The rules seem well crafted, and all the possibilities offered by extrapolating from the base system actually spurs my creativity when I read any part of it: characters, gadgets, the dramatic resolution systems.  And I think that's an important part of it, too; maybe because you're playing within a structure, you feel a bit more freedom to create.  To stretch an analogy, it's like writing a haiku or a poem in sonnet form, or a traditional blues tune that has the same chords and melody as a thousand others.  Sometimes structure promotes creativity.  And, with all of Spycraft's detail, you get the feeling that the choices you make matter somehow, with trade-offs where appropriate.

Finally, detailed rules can just plain be interesting in and of themselves.  As an example from the boardgaming hobby, sometimes fighting out an armor battle with ASL scratches an itch that nothing else can.  :)

I've been on a much lighter rules kick lately, but sometimes a good crunchy ruleset is where it's at.

I've decided to pass on extending my thoughts on why granularity misses the point. I would be effectively talking to myself I think as no one here is likely anywhere near the same page.

I'll just leave it that granularity is the obvious effect of other more complex needs.'

Quote from: gleichmanI've decided to pass on extending my thoughts on why granularity misses the point. I would be effectively talking to myself I think as no one here is likely anywhere near the same page.

I'll just leave it that granularity is the obvious effect of other more complex needs.'

I'd like to read your thoughts.  You might shed light on the subject at hand, make people examine their answers to the original question (which is a really good one, btw) and see things from a different angle.

Quote from: KenHRI'd like to read your thoughts.  You might shed light on the subject at hand, make people examine their answers to the original question (which is a really good one, btw) and see things from a different angle.

I'll try and put together an Elements article on the subject that I can put up on my website and reference here. I think it would work better in that format.

Now that I've had time to digest all these things we've been discussing, put one of the kiddos to bed, fall asleep on a lumpy couch and wake up to a quiet house with the lights all out, I have questions:

Everything I've seen on this thread has been about combat.  How "robust" do you like your mechanic for other things?

Social interactions?

Magic/Psionics/Miracles/Superpowers?

Does the "robustness" carry over to categories of activities (combat, social situations and magic) or does it go deeper into the skill/ability/task/resolution level where every single skill touches and uses the mechanic in a unique, detailed, "high fidelity" manner?   Are you looking for a mechanic that says, "here's how skills are used..." or "Skill A does X. Skill B does Y.  Skill C does Z."?

Quote from: VellorianEverything I've seen on this thread has been about combat.

Huh?

No it really has not.

I brought up a combat example, because it was convenient and I was asked for a singular, explicit example.

Everything else I have said has been of a broader mindset. Things like starship construction, planetary rules, tracking of social interactions... these are things that were kicking around in my head when talking about things like "depth of model."

Quote from: Caesar SlaadHuh?

No it really has not.

I brought up a combat example, because it was convenient and I was asked for a singular, explicit example.

Everything else I have said has been of a broader mindset. Things like starship construction, planetary rules, tracking of social interactions... these are things that were kicking around in my head when talking about things like "depth of model."

Okay, bad phraseology.  :)

"Everything I read, I interpretted to apply to combat..."

Better?  :)

Quote from: VellorianNow that I've had time to digest all these things we've been discussing, put one of the kiddos to bed, fall asleep on a lumpy couch and wake up to a quiet house with the lights all out, I have questions:

Everything I've seen on this thread has been about combat.  How "robust" do you like your mechanic for other things?

Social interactions?

Magic/Psionics/Miracles/Superpowers?

Does the "robustness" carry over to categories of activities (combat, social situations and magic) or does it go deeper into the skill/ability/task/resolution level where every single skill touches and uses the mechanic in a unique, detailed, "high fidelity" manner?   Are you looking for a mechanic that says, "here's how skills are used..." or "Skill A does X. Skill B does Y.  Skill C does Z."?

It seems that different games can be 'rules light' (sorry, I hate 'lite') with respect to certain aspects of the game, and 'rules heavy' with respect to other aspects, depending on the overall purpose or focus of the game.  

Of course, some games can strive to be very detailed with respect to most/all situations likely to arise during the game (I suppose that HERO might be an example of such a game), while others might be very general with respect to most/all situations likely to arise during the game (FUDGE).

Rolemaster and D&D 3e are games with very specific, detailed rules for combat and magic.  This is, I suppose, because those games are aimed at people who want a high degree of 'detail' and 'meaningful, different options' during combat.  In contrast, Rolemaster and D&D 3e have rather general, abstract skill systems for all noncombat tasks (essentially, roll + modifiers, beat the target number).  Presumably people who play these games don't want detailed rules for picking locks, deciphering scripts, etc.  A general, abstract mechanic suffices for all such tasks.

Quote from: VellorianDoes the "robustness" carry over to categories of activities (combat, social situations and magic) or does it go deeper into the skill/ability/task/resolution level where every single skill touches and uses the mechanic in a unique, detailed, "high fidelity" manner?   Are you looking for a mechanic that says, "here's how skills are used..." or "Skill A does X. Skill B does Y.  Skill C does Z."?

My post wasn't about combat, either, but along the lines of what Caesar Slaad said.

A game that treats all its components with a detail similar to what most do for combat again has that feel of consistency.  If all aspects of the model are built with the same level of detail and abstraction, the design feels solid.  I'm never quite able to articulate this point very well, but this applies to rules heavy and light games equally: Classic Trav's various systems treat their subjects with a similar level of fidelity, especially when you stick to the basic three books; combat feels just as abstract as does trading, starship building, star system generation, etc.  This type of consistency is a big draw to me.

As far as your skills example, sometimes it's fun to have a "Skill A does X..." system.  For some people, it plays into suspension of disbelief.  Using every skill feels different, rather than "I rolled a 4, missed the difficulty by 6," which is the same no matter what it is you are doing.